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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

depreciation claimed on residential building of Rs. 5,55,305/- e) Disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(viii) of Rs. 1,39,04,056/- f) Disallowance of advertisement expenses of Rs. 1,05,59,467/-. 8. On receipt of draft assessment order, the appellant-company had filed several objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore (DRP). The DRP issued

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,TRICHUR vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

depreciation claimed on residential building of Rs. 5,55,305/- e) Disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(viii) of Rs. 1,39,04,056/- f) Disallowance of advertisement expenses of Rs. 1,05,59,467/-. 8. On receipt of draft assessment order, the appellant-company had filed several objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore (DRP). The DRP issued

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

36(1) (iii) r.w.s 37 of the Act, from making interest-free advances from out of interest- free funds, if such payments are made towards business purposes and if such payments have been made towards specified intents. yy) The following represent the statutory positions for the impugned A.Y. 2011-12 : (i) Section 14A of the Act provides for the disallowance

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

36(1) (iii) r.w.s 37 of the Act, from making interest-free advances from out of interest- free funds, if such payments are made towards business purposes and if such payments have been made towards specified intents. yy) The following represent the statutory positions for the impugned A.Y. 2011-12 : (i) Section 14A of the Act provides for the disallowance

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

36(1) (iii) r.w.s 37 of the Act, from making interest-free advances from out of interest- free funds, if such payments are made towards business purposes and if such payments have been made towards specified intents. yy) The following represent the statutory positions for the impugned A.Y. 2011-12 : (i) Section 14A of the Act provides for the disallowance

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

36(1) (iii) r.w.s 37 of the Act, from making interest-free advances from out of interest- free funds, if such payments are made towards business purposes and if such payments have been made towards specified intents. yy) The following represent the statutory positions for the impugned A.Y. 2011-12 : (i) Section 14A of the Act provides for the disallowance

KIZHAKKANIKODE THANKAPPAN MANOJKUMAR,PALAKKAD vs. DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for assessment year 2014-2015 is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 36(1)(iii).” 15. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 16. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials on record. At the outset, we note that in the first grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the AY 2013-14, we have

KIZHAKKANIKODE THANKAPPAN MANOJKUMAR,PALAKKAD vs. DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for assessment year 2014-2015 is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 36(1)(iii).” 15. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 16. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials on record. At the outset, we note that in the first grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the AY 2013-14, we have

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED,KOLLAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. .......... Appellant Sankaramangalam, Chavara, Kollam 691583 [Pan: Aaact8118R] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 1, Kollam Appellant By: Shri Rajeev R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025

iii) expenditure in the nature of personal expenses of the assessee. 25. Therefore, if an item of expenditure falls within any of the categories indicated in Sections 30 to 36, the same is entitled to deduction as per the provisions of those Sections. But, any expenditure which does not fall within the scope of Sections 30 to 36, but which

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

36,88,962/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued.” 3. In the assessment year 2009-10, the reason recorded is as follows: “The WDV of the assets as on 31.03.2004 stood at Rs.10.57 crores. The assessee has not challenged the assessment order. However

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

36,88,962/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued.” 3. In the assessment year 2009-10, the reason recorded is as follows: “The WDV of the assets as on 31.03.2004 stood at Rs.10.57 crores. The assessee has not challenged the assessment order. However

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

36,88,962/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued.” 3. In the assessment year 2009-10, the reason recorded is as follows: “The WDV of the assets as on 31.03.2004 stood at Rs.10.57 crores. The assessee has not challenged the assessment order. However

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

36,88,962/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued.” 3. In the assessment year 2009-10, the reason recorded is as follows: “The WDV of the assets as on 31.03.2004 stood at Rs.10.57 crores. The assessee has not challenged the assessment order. However

KUMAR MADHAVANPILLAI.S,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1 to 66 and contended that the investment was made by the assessee in the residential property. Therefore, the same is eligible for deduction under section 50/54F of the Act. It was also contended by the learned AR that the depreciable assets, if the period of holding exceeds 36 months, are also eligible for such deduction under section 50/54F

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

36,19,407/-, Reserve for due to the item of Rs. 1,30,04,655/- and arrear on interest of Rs. 26,48,290/- during the year and therefore did not qualify for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act as it is not earned from the business of providing credit facility to its members and accordingly disallowed