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

57 lakhs. In view of this, ground no.3 of the appeal is allowed. 11. Ground no.4 is with respect to disallowance of depreciation of Rs.94,086. The only reason why the depreciation allowance was confirmed by the ld. lower authorities is failure on the part of assessee to submit the requisite details. The ld. AR has categorically stated that

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 ,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

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

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

57,99,270/- as revenue expenditure by holding that the expenditure had resulted in enduring benefit and held it to be capital expenditure. xii. The AO denied the claim for allowance of depreciation at 80% of the existing asset. xiii. The AO also made several additions on book profit determined u/s. 115JB of the Act. 4. On receipt

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. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

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. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

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. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

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. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

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. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

CABOT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of on the afore-stated terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascabot Technology Solutions Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax – 1 204, 2Nd Floor, Lulu Cyber Tower Vs. Cr Building , Is Press Infopark, Kochi 682042 Road, Kochi 682018 [Pan:Aadcc 9320K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Allen Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Revision Of It’S Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 20.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Act (Pr. Cit), Vide His Order Dated 18.01.2022. 2.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Company In Software Development Business, Returned, For The Relevant Year, An Income Of Rs.3,67,574 Under The Regular Provisions Of The Act & A Book-Profit Of Rs.14,33,474 U/S.115Jb Of The Act, Paying The Higher Tax On The Latter. The Same Was Subject To Regular Assessment, Determining The Income Under The Regular Provisions At Rs. 8,10,750 & At The Returned Book-Profit Under Mat Provisions. The Assessment Record Was Subsequently Examined By The Learned Pr. Cit In Exercise Of His Revisionary

section 10AA of the Act, claimed and allowed at Rs.125.77 lakhs, as against the book-profit of Rs.87.89 lakhs. (b) Set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation at Rs.25,82,454 and Rs.26,34,602 respectively, as against only depreciation at Rs.9,57

KITEX GARMENTS LIMITED,KIZHAKKAMBALAM vs. DCIT 1(1), CORPORATE CIRCLE, KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

57,09,870/- The disparity between returned and assessed income is on account of reducing the capital subsidy of Rs. 5,93,99,739/- from the value of block of assets for the purpose of claiming depreciation and claiming interest subsidy of Rs. 12,05,479/- as capital receipt. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed

M/S. VYSALI PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,ERNAKULAM vs. THE PCIT, KOCHI-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Ix/639, Edathala P.O. Of Income Tax -1 Vs. Ernakulam 683561 C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road [Pan:Aaacv 5491P] Kochi - 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2024 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Agitates The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 30/10/2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (Pr. Cit) Vide Order Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30.03.2022. 2. The 68-Day Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Explained By An Affidavit Dated 14.7.2023 By Shri A.D. Krishnan, Managing Director Of The Assessee-Company. We Find The Reasons Stated Therein As Genuine & Debilitative Of The Assessee’S Capacity In Filing The Appeal In Time. The Appeal Was Accordingly Admitted & The Hearing Proceeded With.

depreciation, save disallowance for Rs.2,57,033, principally towards delayed payment of employee’s contribution to employee welfare funds, u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. The impugned revision is for the reason of non-enquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO) in assessment qua the following: (a) Unsecured Loans: the assessee had acquired loans from it’s Directors at Rs.1.68

PRIME PROPERTY DEVELOPERS,THIRD FLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

57,200. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.12.2019 by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. In the assessment, the Assessing Officer made various disallowances and additions as under: I.T.A. No.854/COCH/2024 Prime Property Developers (i) Disallowance of lump-sum diesel expenses: Rs. 10,00,000, on account of estimated inflation

MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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

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

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

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