DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

50,050/- as the assessee has not filed the revised return of income. However, loss on account of depreciation, to the tune of Rs.1,62,04,983/- was allowed by the AO , in the second round of litigation . The matter again travelled to Ld.CIT(A) at the behest of the assessee, who was pleased to hold vide appellate order dated

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

DCIT, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S ACEELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO, LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

50 is a full code for computation of capital gains on depreciable assets. On the other hand under Section 50B the asset has to be first classified between long term or short term capital asset and then for the purpose of Sections 48 and 49 net worth has to be computed in terms of explanation 1

ACEELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO.LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. DCIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

50 is a full code for computation of capital gains on depreciable assets. On the other hand under Section 50B the asset has to be first classified between long term or short term capital asset and then for the purpose of Sections 48 and 49 net worth has to be computed in terms of explanation 1

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

section 45(4). The Assessing Officer limited the levy of capital gains to the extent of 14.25 cents of land involved. Since the building was sold at the book value, i.e., depreciated value, the Assessing Officer accepted the transaction as one falling u/s. 50(1

SMT.K.B.SONY,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance for limited period in case of certain domestic companies. Section 35 deals with expenditure on scientific research, section 35A deals with expenditure on acquisition of patent right or copy right. Section 35AB deals with expenditure on know-how. Section 35ABB deals with expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. Section 35AC deals with expenditure

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 32(l)(iia) nowhere specifically denies the assessee the right to claim the additional depreciation on a restrictive basis (50%) for an asset which is put to use for the purpose of business or profession for a period of less than 180 days. According to the Assessing Officer, Clause (ii a) of subsection (1

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 32(l)(iia) nowhere specifically denies the assessee the right to claim the additional depreciation on a restrictive basis (50%) for an asset which is put to use for the purpose of business or profession for a period of less than 180 days. According to the Assessing Officer, Clause (ii a) of subsection (1

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

50% of such management fees payable for the captioned A Y, had been reversed by the Appellant. The AO in this respect, has disregarded the directions mentioned in Circular No. 7/2007 dated 23 October 2007. Ground No. 8- Consequential levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. 8.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

50% of such management fees payable for the captioned A Y, had been reversed by the Appellant. The AO in this respect, has disregarded the directions mentioned in Circular No. 7/2007 dated 23 October 2007. Ground No. 8- Consequential levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. 8.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee’s last substantive ground. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in very terms. ITA No. 233/Coch/2024 – AY : 2006-07 5. The assessee has raised it’s sole substantive ground claiming section 244A interest inter alia for the sole reason that his tribunal had passed its order

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee’s last substantive ground. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in very terms. ITA No. 233/Coch/2024 – AY : 2006-07 5. The assessee has raised it’s sole substantive ground claiming section 244A interest inter alia for the sole reason that his tribunal had passed its order

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee’s last substantive ground. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in very terms. ITA No. 233/Coch/2024 – AY : 2006-07 5. The assessee has raised it’s sole substantive ground claiming section 244A interest inter alia for the sole reason that his tribunal had passed its order

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee’s last substantive ground. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in very terms. ITA No. 233/Coch/2024 – AY : 2006-07 5. The assessee has raised it’s sole substantive ground claiming section 244A interest inter alia for the sole reason that his tribunal had passed its order

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee’s last substantive ground. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in very terms. ITA No. 233/Coch/2024 – AY : 2006-07 5. The assessee has raised it’s sole substantive ground claiming section 244A interest inter alia for the sole reason that his tribunal had passed its order

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee’s last substantive ground. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in very terms. ITA No. 233/Coch/2024 – AY : 2006-07 5. The assessee has raised it’s sole substantive ground claiming section 244A interest inter alia for the sole reason that his tribunal had passed its order

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

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

50,02,98,250 15 Reimbursement of expenses 1,07,78,001 16 Recovery of expenses 3,69,14,146 3. On noticing the above international transactions, the AO referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. The TPO vide order dated

MANJILAS AGRO FOOD PVT.LTD.,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO,WARD-1(2),, THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

50 per cent was claimed. Details of the plant and machinery, WDV, additions during the year, depreciation claimed and WDV, on the close of the assessment ITA Nos.32 to 34/Coch/2022 Page 5 of 18 year were indicated. Assessment order itself shows that after examining books of account produced and after verifying the necessary details, the total income is computed