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

section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of CIT v. Deha Assam Tea Co. P. Ltd. (2000) 241 ITR 555, held as follows:- “As a matter of fact the same point having once been raised in one of the income-tax references, a Division Bench of this Court

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

section 47 (XIII) and claim of depreciation is erroneous on facts and in law. 2.(i) Whether on facts CIT(A) was right

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

section 47 (XIII) and claim of depreciation is erroneous on facts and in law. 2.(i) Whether on facts CIT(A) was right

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

47(ii) was deleted by the amendment that introduced section 45(4). Thus, the purpose and object of the Finance Act, 1987 was to charge tax arising on distribution of capital assets of the firm which otherwise was not subject to tax. Therefore, the language of section 45(4) should be construed to mean that the expression "or otherwise

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

depreciation; the question is whether the claim of the assessee conforms the deduction permissible under Section 37(1) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the preoperative expenses amounting to Rs.26,97,79,538/- incurred by the assessee are revenue expenses, and are correctly so held by the Tribunal

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts, inter-alia; in not evaluating the detailed submissions filed and case laws cited by the assessee rendered in the context of the said claim. Further, the CIT(A) has also erred

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts, inter-alia; in not evaluating the detailed submissions filed and case laws cited by the assessee rendered in the context of the said claim. Further, the CIT(A) has also erred

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS "JRG SECURITIES LTD"),KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts, inter-alia; in not evaluating the detailed submissions filed and case laws cited by the assessee rendered in the context of the said claim. Further, the CIT(A) has also erred

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts, inter-alia; in not evaluating the detailed submissions filed and case laws cited by the assessee rendered in the context of the said claim. Further, the CIT(A) has also erred

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts, inter-alia; in not evaluating the detailed submissions filed and case laws cited by the assessee rendered in the context of the said claim. Further, the CIT(A) has also erred

M/S OIL PALM INDIA LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Oil Palm India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Xiv/130, Kottayam South P.O., Circle – 1, Kodimatha, Kottayam. Kottayam. Pan : Aaaci 3695 G Appellant Respondent

47,61,990/-. The assessee aggrieved by the order of rectification, filed appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by stating that the objections were not raised before the AO during the rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR filed a detailed

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

sections of the CFS. The same, listed separately, get split and, therefore, the availability of cash at any given date is not known, and would require being worked each time the source of investment oran outgoing is to be verified. No wonder, it has been not. The second deficiency in the said Statement is that it includes bank accounts

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

sections of the CFS. The same, listed separately, get split and, therefore, the availability of cash at any given date is not known, and would require being worked each time the source of investment oran outgoing is to be verified. No wonder, it has been not. The second deficiency in the said Statement is that it includes bank accounts

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

sections of the CFS. The same, listed separately, get split and, therefore, the availability of cash at any given date is not known, and would require being worked each time the source of investment oran outgoing is to be verified. No wonder, it has been not. The second deficiency in the said Statement is that it includes bank accounts

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

sections of the CFS. The same, listed separately, get split and, therefore, the availability of cash at any given date is not known, and would require being worked each time the source of investment oran outgoing is to be verified. No wonder, it has been not. The second deficiency in the said Statement is that it includes bank accounts

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

sections of the CFS. The same, listed separately, get split and, therefore, the availability of cash at any given date is not known, and would require being worked each time the source of investment oran outgoing is to be verified. No wonder, it has been not. The second deficiency in the said Statement is that it includes bank accounts

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

sections of the CFS. The same, listed separately, get split and, therefore, the availability of cash at any given date is not known, and would require being worked each time the source of investment oran outgoing is to be verified. No wonder, it has been not. The second deficiency in the said Statement is that it includes bank accounts

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

sections of the CFS. The same, listed separately, get split and, therefore, the availability of cash at any given date is not known, and would require being worked each time the source of investment oran outgoing is to be verified. No wonder, it has been not. The second deficiency in the said Statement is that it includes bank accounts

M/S.COOL MINDS TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: CIT(A) the it was claimed by the Assessee that deduction under Section 10B of the Act was initially claimed by the Assessee under the bona fide belief that it is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The CITT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee agreeing with the Assessing Officer and holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in not considering the claim made by the Assessee under Section 10A of the Act. Now the Assessee is in

47 & 77/2015, dt. 10/10/2017 – Ker. HC) [confirming the Order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.97/Coch/2014, dt. 28/08/2014 – Coch. Trib.] - CIT vs. Technovate E. Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.100/2012, dt. 26/02/2013 – Del. HC) - CIT vs. M/s. Heartland KG Information Ltd.(TC(A) No.625/2009, dt. 19/08/2013) 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the alternative claim for deduction under