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.

41,58,630 -755,86,53,658 purpose It may kindly be seen from the provision account, that there was no opening credit balance which was required to be adjusted against the bad debts written off during the year since there was no opening credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) but only

M/S HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

41(1) being met, which is only in respect of a liability deduction for which stands already allowed to the assessee in the computation of its business income, i.e., upon the liability in its respect, inter alia, ceasing. True, mere non-mention or wrong mention of the provision of law, as long as there is power for the relevant action

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

41,259/- resulting in an overnight increase of Rs.80,70,944/-. Since income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.3,36,88,962/- 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

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

41,259/- resulting in an overnight increase of Rs.80,70,944/-. Since income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.3,36,88,962/- 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

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

41,259/- resulting in an overnight increase of Rs.80,70,944/-. Since income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.3,36,88,962/- 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

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

41,259/- resulting in an overnight increase of Rs.80,70,944/-. Since income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.3,36,88,962/- 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 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.

depreciation in the subsequent year. ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 4 of 10 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to and relies on the judgments in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai v. T P Textiles (P) Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 411 (Madras) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com

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.

depreciation in the subsequent year. ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 4 of 10 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to and relies on the judgments in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai v. T P Textiles (P) Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 411 (Madras) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com

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.

depreciation in the subsequent year. ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 4 of 10 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to and relies on the judgments in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai v. T P Textiles (P) Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 411 (Madras) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com

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.

depreciation in the subsequent year. ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 4 of 10 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to and relies on the judgments in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai v. T P Textiles (P) Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 411 (Madras) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com

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.

depreciation in the subsequent year. ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 4 of 10 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to and relies on the judgments in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai v. T P Textiles (P) Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 411 (Madras) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); Page 3 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Provided that where an assessment under

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); Page 3 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Provided that where an assessment under

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PVR TOURIST HOME, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Non-Corporate .......... Appellant Iind Floor, C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682018 Vs. Pvr Tourist Home .......... Respondent Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aadfp3442Q] Appellant By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2025

1) of section 50 of the Act. If such method is adopted, it would not result in short term capital gain. 12. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The matter was remanded to this Tribunal by the Hon'ble High Court with a specific finding upholding the applicability

SRI.K.P. JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

41,500 b) From Mrs. CelineJohny (1): 500” [(1) the names, K.O. Ittoop & Lizzy Ittoop appear in the letter on record, called for by the Bench in view of the letter extracted in the assessment order (pg. 12) being not clear; the assessee’s file was stated by the ld. Sr. DR as not available with the concerned

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

41,500 b) From Mrs. CelineJohny (1): 500” [(1) the names, K.O. Ittoop & Lizzy Ittoop appear in the letter on record, called for by the Bench in view of the letter extracted in the assessment order (pg. 12) being not clear; the assessee’s file was stated by the ld. Sr. DR as not available with the concerned

MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— ………………… (6) "written down value" means— (a) ………………… (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation actually allowed to him under this Act, or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or any Act repealed by that

MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,WALAYAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— ………………… (6) "written down value" means— (a) ………………… (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation actually allowed to him under this Act, or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or any Act repealed by that

MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,WALAYAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— ………………… (6) "written down value" means— (a) ………………… (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation actually allowed to him under this Act, or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or any Act repealed by that