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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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

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

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

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

v) to section 143 1(a) of the Act, the A.O may made disallowance of deduction claimed under section 143(1)(a)of the Act, the A.O may make disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA; 80-IA,80-IAB,80IB,80-IC,80ID &80IE if return is filed beyond the due date prescribed by section 139(1). Disallowance

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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.

v) reads as under: where such debts or part of debt relates to advances made by an assesse to which clause(viia) of sub-section (1) applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assesse has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account

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

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 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

36, but which may still qualify while computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession", will be covered by Section 37(1). 26. But, what is important to note is that under both provisions, namely Section 31 as well as Section 37(1), capital expenditure is excluded. If an amount paid on account

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