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.

4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments are pending in the statutory hierarchy of adjudication in terms of the provisions of the IT Act. In all such situations, it cannot be treated that a return filed at any stage of such proceedings could

ERNAKULAM REGIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNIONS LTD.,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2012-13

depreciation claimed on the ground that section 32(1)(iia) does not Page 4 of 9 provide any scope for carry

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

4. It is not in dispute that if these ponds are 'plants', then they are eligible for depreciation at the rates applicable to plant and machinery and case would be covered by the provisions of Section

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

4. It is not in dispute that if these ponds are 'plants', then they are eligible for depreciation at the rates applicable to plant and machinery and case would be covered by the provisions of Section

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

4. It is not in dispute that if these ponds are 'plants', then they are eligible for depreciation at the rates applicable to plant and machinery and case would be covered by the provisions of Section

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

4. It is not in dispute that if these ponds are 'plants', then they are eligible for depreciation at the rates applicable to plant and machinery and case would be covered by the provisions of Section

CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION CO.(P) LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

4. The learned Departmental Representative supported the findings of the AO and the CIT(A). 3 ITA No.25/Coch/2014. M/s.Cherian Varkey Construction Co.P.Ltd. 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee had purchased the following assets:- Sl. Particulars of assets Value Depreciation Additional No. on which depreciation depreciation is claimed 1. Transit Mixers

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

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

4 of 8 to contribution made under other clauses of section 80G (2) of the Act. As the assessee company had made contribution under clause (iv) of sub-section (2) of section 80G of the Act and hence, the restriction of CSR contribution is not applicable to this contribution. 7. Before us, the ld. D.R. relied on the order

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation amounting to Rs.94,086 was disallowed, as the assessee failed to show ITA Nos.268 & 269/COCH/2023 Page 4 of 9 the applicability of 5th proviso to section

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation amounting to Rs.94,086 was disallowed, as the assessee failed to show ITA Nos.268 & 269/COCH/2023 Page 4 of 9 the applicability of 5th proviso to section

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed depreciation on account of the fact that the equipment for which depreciation was claimed was not used for more than 180 days in the previous year 2007- 08. Thus, the assessee claimed 10% of permissible 20% depreciation in the previous year 2007-08 and claimed

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed depreciation on account of the fact that the equipment for which depreciation was claimed was not used for more than 180 days in the previous year 2007- 08. Thus, the assessee claimed 10% of permissible 20% depreciation in the previous year 2007-08 and claimed

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed depreciation on account of the fact that the equipment for which depreciation was claimed was not used for more than 180 days in the previous year 2007- 08. Thus, the assessee claimed 10% of permissible 20% depreciation in the previous year 2007-08 and claimed

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed depreciation on account of the fact that the equipment for which depreciation was claimed was not used for more than 180 days in the previous year 2007- 08. Thus, the assessee claimed 10% of permissible 20% depreciation in the previous year 2007-08 and claimed

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed depreciation on account of the fact that the equipment for which depreciation was claimed was not used for more than 180 days in the previous year 2007- 08. Thus, the assessee claimed 10% of permissible 20% depreciation in the previous year 2007-08 and claimed

NIZAR,THODUPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS,, THODUPUZHA/

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section (1) shall be deemed 4 ITA No.825/Coch/2024. Sri.Nizar. to have been calculated as if the assessee had claimed and had been actually allowed the deduction in respect of the depreciation

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

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 Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

depreciation on factory buildings was wrongly allowed at five per cent. instead of ten per cent. It would appear that in the course of the discussions that took place with the Income-tax Officer on this matter the assessee had contended that the rectification petition dated July 4, 1986, was not hit by the bar of limitation if July

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

section 32 of the Act. Balance additional depreciation cannot be allowed in subsequent AY, i.e. the year under consideration – Rs. 36,21,58,356/- iii. Disallowance of pre-operative expenditure details of which were extracted by the AO vide para 9 of the draft assessment order. These pre-operative expenditure was incurred for the purpose of setting

TAG CHEMICALS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1) , TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Tag Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) Kinfra Bio-Technology & Trivandrum Industrial Zone Vs. Thrikkakara North Part Hmt Colony, Ernakulam 683503 [Pan: Aacct8064G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

4 TAG Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. 10.3 Hence, the disallowance of Rs.22.50 crores made by AO has rightly been deleted by Id. CIT(A) by directing the AO to allow depreciation at the rate of 25% on the said payment of upfront fee of Rs.150 crores. Thus, Ground No.1 taken by department is rejected." Respectfully following the order