KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F

depreciation in respect of intangible asset @ 10% treating as a building as against 25% claimed by the appellant following the order of the CIT(A) for the AY 2009-10. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of guarantee commission paid to State Government as per the provisions of section 40

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

M/S SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

40 (Delhi) (Tribu.). Mr. Gopi takes as to para 6 therein that the hon'ble Gujarat high court had also accepted similar issue therein rejecting the department’s submission and hold that such plant and machinery is indeed entitled for depreciation. We find that their lordships had come across the corresponding depreciation claim relating to an oil rig, which

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

40 (Delhi) (Tribu.). Mr. Gopi takes as to para 6 therein that the hon'ble Gujarat high court had also accepted similar issue therein rejecting the department’s submission and hold that such plant and machinery is indeed entitled for depreciation. We find that their lordships had come across the corresponding depreciation claim relating to an oil rig, which

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

40 (Delhi) (Tribu.). Mr. Gopi takes as to para 6 therein that the hon'ble Gujarat high court had also accepted similar issue therein rejecting the department’s submission and hold that such plant and machinery is indeed entitled for depreciation. We find that their lordships had come across the corresponding depreciation claim relating to an oil rig, which

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

40 (Delhi) (Tribu.). Mr. Gopi takes as to para 6 therein that the hon'ble Gujarat high court had also accepted similar issue therein rejecting the department’s submission and hold that such plant and machinery is indeed entitled for depreciation. We find that their lordships had come across the corresponding depreciation claim relating to an oil rig, which

TRICHUR HEART HOSPITAL LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit. Subsequently, during the performance audit by the Audit Party, it was observed that the assessee had claimed depreciation at 40

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.

40(a)(ia) on the payment made by the assessee to an overseas entity towards brokerage and commission – AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 (iii) Disallowance u/s.14A – AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s. 32(1)(iia) 3. The assessee is a public sector undertaking engaged in building, repair and maintenance work of ships

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.

40(a)(ia) on the payment made by the assessee to an overseas entity towards brokerage and commission – AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 (iii) Disallowance u/s.14A – AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s. 32(1)(iia) 3. The assessee is a public sector undertaking engaged in building, repair and maintenance work of ships

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.

40(a)(ia) on the payment made by the assessee to an overseas entity towards brokerage and commission – AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 (iii) Disallowance u/s.14A – AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s. 32(1)(iia) 3. The assessee is a public sector undertaking engaged in building, repair and maintenance work of ships

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.

40(a)(ia) on the payment made by the assessee to an overseas entity towards brokerage and commission – AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 (iii) Disallowance u/s.14A – AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s. 32(1)(iia) 3. The assessee is a public sector undertaking engaged in building, repair and maintenance work of ships

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.

40(a)(ia) on the payment made by the assessee to an overseas entity towards brokerage and commission – AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 (iii) Disallowance u/s.14A – AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s. 32(1)(iia) 3. The assessee is a public sector undertaking engaged in building, repair and maintenance work of ships

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

40. (3) The written down value of any asset used for the purpose of the business referred to in sub-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

PRIME PROPERTY DEVELOPERS,THIRD FLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.12.2019 by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. In the assessment, the Assessing Officer made various disallowances and additions as under: I.T.A. No.854/COCH/2024 Prime Property Developers (i) Disallowance of lump-sum diesel expenses: Rs. 10,00,000, on account of estimated inflation of labour expenses. (ii) Disallowance of 20% depreciation