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

depreciation is claimed 1. Transit Mixers 65,62,774 8,20,346 6,56,277 2. Truck 85,86,528 10,73,316 8,58,653 Total 1,51,49,302 18,93,662 15,14,930 3. Other plant and 9,44,574 machineries Total 24,59,504 5.1 The sample copies of the invoices for the Transit Mixers

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record by to come

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record by to come

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record by to come

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record by to come

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

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)

1 cr. has been received by the shareholders; the balance being to Manko for paying off its liabilities, proved by it’s books, extracted in the relevant part in the impugned order. As such, even as SA specifies the sale consideration at Rs. 675 lacs, it delineates its payment, being Rs. 575 lacs to the company itself, which credits

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)

1 cr. has been received by the shareholders; the balance being to Manko for paying off its liabilities, proved by it’s books, extracted in the relevant part in the impugned order. As such, even as SA specifies the sale consideration at Rs. 675 lacs, it delineates its payment, being Rs. 575 lacs to the company itself, which credits

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

56,914 TNMM LLC, UAE 3. Alukkas Ltd., London Supply of gift items Rs. 2,86,032 --- 6. The appellant-company also submitted the TP study report adopting the internal TNMM as most appropriate method and sought to justify the above international transactions are at arm’s length price (ALP). On noticing the above, the AO referred the matter

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,TRICHUR vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

56,914 TNMM LLC, UAE 3. Alukkas Ltd., London Supply of gift items Rs. 2,86,032 --- 6. The appellant-company also submitted the TP study report adopting the internal TNMM as most appropriate method and sought to justify the above international transactions are at arm’s length price (ALP). On noticing the above, the AO referred the matter

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

56(2)(viib)). vi) Delayed payment of tax and return filed late. vii) Large- other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss a/c. viii). Depreciation claimed at higher rates/higher additional depreciation claimed. viii) New foreign asset in the nature of financial interest in any entity. ix) Low income shown by large contractors. x) Receipt of large value foreign remittance (Froml5CA

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

56% of the expenditure debited to P&L account after depreciation, royalty etc. This expenditure is excessive in view of its proportion to the total expenditure debited. Therefore, 25% of Rs. 25,05,586/- ie. Rs. 6,26,396/-is disallowed u/s.40A(2)(a), treating it as excessive within the meaning of section mentioned. It is also to be noted

M/S SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

56% of the expenditure debited to P&L account after depreciation, royalty etc. This expenditure is excessive in view of its proportion to the total expenditure debited. Therefore, 25% of Rs. 25,05,586/- ie. Rs. 6,26,396/-is disallowed u/s.40A(2)(a), treating it as excessive within the meaning of section mentioned. It is also to be noted

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

56% of the expenditure debited to P&L account after depreciation, royalty etc. This expenditure is excessive in view of its proportion to the total expenditure debited. Therefore, 25% of Rs. 25,05,586/- ie. Rs. 6,26,396/-is disallowed u/s.40A(2)(a), treating it as excessive within the meaning of section mentioned. It is also to be noted

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

56% of the expenditure debited to P&L account after depreciation, royalty etc. This expenditure is excessive in view of its proportion to the total expenditure debited. Therefore, 25% of Rs. 25,05,586/- ie. Rs. 6,26,396/-is disallowed u/s.40A(2)(a), treating it as excessive within the meaning of section mentioned. It is also to be noted

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

56% of the expenditure debited to P&L account after depreciation, royalty etc. This expenditure is excessive in view of its proportion to the total expenditure debited. Therefore, 25% of Rs. 25,05,586/- ie. Rs. 6,26,396/-is disallowed u/s.40A(2)(a), treating it as excessive within the meaning of section mentioned. It is also to be noted

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

56% of the expenditure debited to P&L account after depreciation, royalty etc. This expenditure is excessive in view of its proportion to the total expenditure debited. Therefore, 25% of Rs. 25,05,586/- ie. Rs. 6,26,396/-is disallowed u/s.40A(2)(a), treating it as excessive within the meaning of section mentioned. It is also to be noted

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1. Brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 have not been correctly declared by the assessee in the return. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of Rs.40,96,155/- from business loss of Rs.24,20,60,716/- which is not proper. 3. Additional depreciation of Rs.17,73,077/- has been claimed on assets put to use during