APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1) KOCHI, KOCHI, KERALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

depreciation computed under normal provisions of the Act. As such, the income of the eligible unit has to be taxed independently without merging with the non-eligible unit u/s 10A of the Act. The ITAT while holding so has made reference to the judgment of special bench in the case of Scientific Atlanta India Technology Private Ltd., reported

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

depreciation computed under normal provisions of the Act. As such, the income of the eligible unit has to be taxed independently without merging with the non-eligible unit u/s 10A of the Act. The ITAT while holding so has made reference to the judgment of special bench in the case of Scientific Atlanta India Technology Private Ltd., reported

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

35D of the Act. Faced with this situation, we find that the issue deserves to be restored to the Assessing Officer as there is no indication that he had considered the assessee’s claim under the foregoing specific statutory provision. We accordingly restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for his factual verification and adjudication afresh. 11. The assessee

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

35D of the Act. Faced with this situation, we find that the issue deserves to be restored to the Assessing Officer as there is no indication that he had considered the assessee’s claim under the foregoing specific statutory provision. We accordingly restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for his factual verification and adjudication afresh. 11. The assessee

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

35D of the Act. Faced with this situation, we find that the issue deserves to be restored to the Assessing Officer as there is no indication that he had considered the assessee’s claim under the foregoing specific statutory provision. We accordingly restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for his factual verification and adjudication afresh. 11. The assessee

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

35D of the Act. Faced with this situation, we find that the issue deserves to be restored to the Assessing Officer as there is no indication that he had considered the assessee’s claim under the foregoing specific statutory provision. We accordingly restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for his factual verification and adjudication afresh. 11. The assessee

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

35D of the Act. Faced with this situation, we find that the issue deserves to be restored to the Assessing Officer as there is no indication that he had considered the assessee’s claim under the foregoing specific statutory provision. We accordingly restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for his factual verification and adjudication afresh. 11. The assessee

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

35D of the Act. Faced with this situation, we find that the issue deserves to be restored to the Assessing Officer as there is no indication that he had considered the assessee’s claim under the foregoing specific statutory provision. We accordingly restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for his factual verification and adjudication afresh. 11. The assessee

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 35(2)(ia) of the Act and was also not known whether assessee had excluded such land value. Again as per the learned CIT(A), assessee could not clarify whether the assets had claimed depreciation on such building. He thus held that sufficient details and clarifications on the claim were not available. With these observation he dismissed the claim

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 35(2)(ia) of the Act and was also not known whether assessee had excluded such land value. Again as per the learned CIT(A), assessee could not clarify whether the assets had claimed depreciation on such building. He thus held that sufficient details and clarifications on the claim were not available. With these observation he dismissed the claim

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 35(2)(ia) of the Act and was also not known whether assessee had excluded such land value. Again as per the learned CIT(A), assessee could not clarify whether the assets had claimed depreciation on such building. He thus held that sufficient details and clarifications on the claim were not available. With these observation he dismissed the claim