Search: depreciation

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 565/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 30Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

36(1)(va) being employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESI even though same were not deposited in respective fund within stipulated time – Apex Court in case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178/ [2023] 290 Taxman 19/[2022] 448 ITR 518/2022 SCC Online Sc 1423, held that non obstante clause under section 43B could

THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

ITA 219/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

36(1)(viii) of the Act with regard to providing long term finance for industrial or agricultural development or development of infrastructure facility in India and the same is confirmed. Thus, this ground of appeals of both the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed. 11. The next ground in assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 215/Coch/2018 is with

SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

ITA 215/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

36(1)(viii) of the Act with regard to providing long term finance for industrial or agricultural development or development of infrastructure facility in India and the same is confirmed. Thus, this ground of appeals of both the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed. 11. The next ground in assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 215/Coch/2018 is with

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 285/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same appears to be a recurring issue between the parties wherein this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench in earlier order dated 22.03.2019 had rejected the assessee’s very contention(s). The assessee thereafter filed its appeal

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 232/COCH/2024[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same appears to be a recurring issue between the parties wherein this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench in earlier order dated 22.03.2019 had rejected the assessee’s very contention(s). The assessee thereafter filed its appeal

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 286/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same appears to be a recurring issue between the parties wherein this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench in earlier order dated 22.03.2019 had rejected the assessee’s very contention(s). The assessee thereafter filed its appeal

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 233/COCH/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same appears to be a recurring issue between the parties wherein this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench in earlier order dated 22.03.2019 had rejected the assessee’s very contention(s). The assessee thereafter filed its appeal

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 288/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same appears to be a recurring issue between the parties wherein this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench in earlier order dated 22.03.2019 had rejected the assessee’s very contention(s). The assessee thereafter filed its appeal

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 283/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same appears to be a recurring issue between the parties wherein this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench in earlier order dated 22.03.2019 had rejected the assessee’s very contention(s). The assessee thereafter filed its appeal

M/S. MAVOOR TRADE LINKS,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 575/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

Section 36(1) (iii) make no distinction between money borrowed to acquire a capital asset and a revenue asset. 8) Therefore, it is incorrect to stipulate that the interest paid has to be capitalized. The interest paid, if capitalized will not enable the benefit of write off as expenditure in any way as no depreciation

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR, TIRUR vs. M/S. SOUTH MALABAR GRAMINA BANK H.O., MALAPPURAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 366/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 36(1)(vii). If an as debits an amount of doubtful debt to the profit and loss account and credits the assets account like sundry debtors account, that would constitute a write off of an actual debt. However, if an assessee debits provision for doubtful debts to the profit and loss account and makes a corresponding credit

M/S.SOUTH MALABAR GRAMINA BANK,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR, THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 364/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 36(1)(vii). If an as debits an amount of doubtful debt to the profit and loss account and credits the assets account like sundry debtors account, that would constitute a write off of an actual debt. However, if an assessee debits provision for doubtful debts to the profit and loss account and makes a corresponding credit

M/S.SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK ( PRESENTLY- KERALA GRAMIN BANK),MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE_2(2), TIRUR, TIRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 363/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 36(1)(vii). If an as debits an amount of doubtful debt to the profit and loss account and credits the assets account like sundry debtors account, that would constitute a write off of an actual debt. However, if an assessee debits provision for doubtful debts to the profit and loss account and makes a corresponding credit

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 188/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

Section 80AC has been amended from AY. 2018-19 and deduction u/s 80P can be allowed only if the ITR is filed within the due date. g) In view of the above facts, the action of AO in making addition/adjustment of Rs.11,36,060/- is upheld. Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1 to 3 are dismissed. h) Ground of Appeal No.4

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRRISSUR vs. MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 34/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

1-4-2015 whereas the year before us relates to the assessment year 2012-13. The Finance Act, 2014 brought an amendment to the first proviso to the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which reads as under – “Accordingly, Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act has been amended to provide that in case of non-deduction

MANJILAS AGRO FOOD PVT.LTD.,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO,WARD-1(2),, THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 33/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

1-4-2015 whereas the year before us relates to the assessment year 2012-13. The Finance Act, 2014 brought an amendment to the first proviso to the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which reads as under – “Accordingly, Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act has been amended to provide that in case of non-deduction

MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THACIT,CIRCLE-1(1 ), THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 32/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

1-4-2015 whereas the year before us relates to the assessment year 2012-13. The Finance Act, 2014 brought an amendment to the first proviso to the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which reads as under – “Accordingly, Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act has been amended to provide that in case of non-deduction

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

1)(iia) of the Act on the ground that the plant and machinery was acquired and put to use during the previous year relevant to AY 2012- 13. Since the assets were put to use for less than 180 days, additional depreciation was allowed only at 10% as per second proviso to section 32 of the Act. Balance additional depreciation

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 628/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Pcit, Aayakar Bhavan, North Block, ……………… Respondent New Annex Building Mananchira, Kozhikode Kerala.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

section 263 of the Act, in respect of this issue are as follows: – 5 “4. I have considered the matter. With regard to bad debt written off,deduction u/s 36(1) and depreciation

PLANT LIPIDS (P) LTD.,KADAYIRUPPU vs. DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 598/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Kadayiruppu Po Kolenchery Dcit, Vs. Kerala 682 311 Corporate Circle-2(1) Kochi Pan No : Aabcp6061C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Thomson Thomas, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ao, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Dated 19.6.2024 Vide Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1065876641(1) For The Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 2 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri Thomson Thomas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 144CSection 80GSection 92C

depreciation and development rebate. • Section 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research and knowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under agriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries. Payment to approved universities/research institutions or company also qualifies for deduction. In-house R&D is eligible for deduction, under this section. • Section 35CCD provides deduction for skill development projects, which constitute