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

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, only 50% of the admissible amount of 20% was allowed in the AY 11-12 and hence the remaining 50% of the additional depreciation

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.

50% of additional depreciation allowed under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed

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.

50% of additional depreciation allowed under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed

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.

50% of additional depreciation allowed under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed

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.

50% of additional depreciation allowed under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed

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.

50% of additional depreciation allowed under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed

DIADORA SHOES PVT LTD,CALICUT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

50%. As per Sec 32(iia) additional depreciation is to be allowed ONLY IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION OF ASSETS. Here the assessee is claiming the same in the second year and as such the claim is disallowed since there is no enabling section

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation to the assessee @ 50% involving maxi cab, motor cab, etc. We note in this factual backdrop that the CIT(A) has not followed his order in AY 2010-11 and the Revenue appears to have accepted the same which has not raised its corresponding substantive ground in its foregoing appeal ITA No. 166/Coch/2017. Rejected accordingly. 16. Revenue lastly contends

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation to the assessee @ 50% involving maxi cab, motor cab, etc. We note in this factual backdrop that the CIT(A) has not followed his order in AY 2010-11 and the Revenue appears to have accepted the same which has not raised its corresponding substantive ground in its foregoing appeal ITA No. 166/Coch/2017. Rejected accordingly. 16. Revenue lastly contends

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation to the assessee @ 50% involving maxi cab, motor cab, etc. We note in this factual backdrop that the CIT(A) has not followed his order in AY 2010-11 and the Revenue appears to have accepted the same which has not raised its corresponding substantive ground in its foregoing appeal ITA No. 166/Coch/2017. Rejected accordingly. 16. Revenue lastly contends

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation to the assessee @ 50% involving maxi cab, motor cab, etc. We note in this factual backdrop that the CIT(A) has not followed his order in AY 2010-11 and the Revenue appears to have accepted the same which has not raised its corresponding substantive ground in its foregoing appeal ITA No. 166/Coch/2017. Rejected accordingly. 16. Revenue lastly contends

KUMAR MADHAVANPILLAI.S,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

50 of the Act irrespective of the period of holding. However, there is no such distinction made under the provisions of section 54/ 54F of the Act and in the definition of long-term capital asset provided under section 2(29AA)/ 2(42A) of the Act. In other words, the gain arising from the depreciable

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

depreciation and development rebate. • Section 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research and knowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under agriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries. Payment to approved universities/research institutions or company also qualifies for deduction. In-house R&D is eligible for deduction, under this section. • Section 35CCD provides deduction for skill development projects, which constitute

DIADORA SHOES PVT LTD,CALICUT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdiadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2 Vkc Tower, Kolathra P.O Calicut 673001 Vs. Calicut 673655 [Pan:Aabcd9692D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

50% of the additional depreciation on new plant or machinery acquired and used for less than 180 days which has not been allowed in the year of acquisition and installation of such plant and machinery, shall be allowed in the immediately succeeding previous year. This view was adopted in Godrej Industries Ltd. (supra), making reference also to Rittal India

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

SREEKUMARI AMMA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

50% of the depreciation from which it is evident that no incriminating material is found based on which the said disallowance is made. The Ld.AR in this regard relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr.CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. Ferns ‘N’ Petals reported in [2017] 395 ITR 526 (Del) where it is held

SREEKUMARI AMMA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

50% of the depreciation from which it is evident that no incriminating material is found based on which the said disallowance is made. The Ld.AR in this regard relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr.CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. Ferns ‘N’ Petals reported in [2017] 395 ITR 526 (Del) where it is held

SREEKUMARI AMMA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

50% of the depreciation from which it is evident that no incriminating material is found based on which the said disallowance is made. The Ld.AR in this regard relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr.CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. Ferns ‘N’ Petals reported in [2017] 395 ITR 526 (Del) where it is held

SREEKUMARI AMMA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

50% of the depreciation from which it is evident that no incriminating material is found based on which the said disallowance is made. The Ld.AR in this regard relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr.CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. Ferns ‘N’ Petals reported in [2017] 395 ITR 526 (Del) where it is held