INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

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

2. The factual ground of the case is that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of running hotel. The return of income for AY 2012-13 was filed on 31.10.2013 declaring income of Rs. 67,59,352/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle

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

section 250 of the act, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has wrongly mentioned the addition figure as ₹ 1, 61,41,520/- as against the actual figure of ₹ 53,85,753/- 9. The ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the order of the ld. CIT (A)/NFAC. 10. On going through the orders of the AO as well

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

section 250 of the act, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has wrongly mentioned the addition figure as ₹ 1, 61,41,520/- as against the actual figure of ₹ 53,85,753/- 9. The ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the order of the ld. CIT (A)/NFAC. 10. On going through the orders of the AO as well

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

2 of 19 2006-07 and 2007-08 the latter value of Rs.33.50 crores had been adopted which resulted in allowing for AY 2005-06 onwards. Thus, the excess depreciation allowed for AY 2008-09 comes to Rs.2,56,18,018/-. Further, in the return of income for the AY 2007-08, the amount shown in the balance sheet

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

2 of 19 2006-07 and 2007-08 the latter value of Rs.33.50 crores had been adopted which resulted in allowing for AY 2005-06 onwards. Thus, the excess depreciation allowed for AY 2008-09 comes to Rs.2,56,18,018/-. Further, in the return of income for the AY 2007-08, the amount shown in the balance sheet

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

2 of 19 2006-07 and 2007-08 the latter value of Rs.33.50 crores had been adopted which resulted in allowing for AY 2005-06 onwards. Thus, the excess depreciation allowed for AY 2008-09 comes to Rs.2,56,18,018/-. Further, in the return of income for the AY 2007-08, the amount shown in the balance sheet

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

2 of 19 2006-07 and 2007-08 the latter value of Rs.33.50 crores had been adopted which resulted in allowing for AY 2005-06 onwards. Thus, the excess depreciation allowed for AY 2008-09 comes to Rs.2,56,18,018/-. Further, in the return of income for the AY 2007-08, the amount shown in the balance sheet

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)

2. The number of shares purchased are as follows: a) From Mr. K.P. Johny (1) : 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

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)

2. The number of shares purchased are as follows: a) From Mr. K.P. Johny (1) : 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

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

section 10B unit has to be excluded at source itself and the AO erred in setting off unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.2,86,43,083/- against the income 11 M/s. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. determined. I direct the AO to recomputed the income on the basis of my earlier findings in this appellate order and further direct him to allow deduction

MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

41,57,030 17.06.2017 39,81,77,960 2017-18 17.10.2017 3,99,99,190 26.07.2018 3,63,65,410 3. The return was taken up for scrutiny through CASS to verify various issues out of which one of the issues was excess depreciation. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee. 4. The assessee’s claim

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

41,57,030 17.06.2017 39,81,77,960 2017-18 17.10.2017 3,99,99,190 26.07.2018 3,63,65,410 3. The return was taken up for scrutiny through CASS to verify various issues out of which one of the issues was excess depreciation. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee. 4. The assessee’s claim

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

41,57,030 17.06.2017 39,81,77,960 2017-18 17.10.2017 3,99,99,190 26.07.2018 3,63,65,410 3. The return was taken up for scrutiny through CASS to verify various issues out of which one of the issues was excess depreciation. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee. 4. The assessee’s claim

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

41,57,030 17.06.2017 39,81,77,960 2017-18 17.10.2017 3,99,99,190 26.07.2018 3,63,65,410 3. The return was taken up for scrutiny through CASS to verify various issues out of which one of the issues was excess depreciation. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee. 4. The assessee’s claim

M/S.KALYAN JEWELLERS INDIA LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

41,30,000/-) and stood allowed in assessments. M/s. Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd., Thrissur Page 4 of 9 2.2 In this connection Ld. Principal CIT noted that as per sub-section(4) to ,section 80G, aggregate sums referred to in sub-clause(iv), (v), (vi), (via) and (vii) of clause (a) and in clause (b) & (c) of sub-section(2

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.

2)(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

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

2% instead of 3%. c) The section under which MAT credit has been allowed has been wrongly mentioned as 115AA instead of 115JAA. d) After 'balance payable', the section under which interest has been levied has been wrongly mentioned as 234D instead of 234B. e) The date of the last payment of tax has been wrongly mentioned