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

57,98,420/- after making various additions/disallowance, including the disallowances of Rs.42,18,575/- and Rs.1,50,03,709/-. 2. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) vide order in ITA No. 38/R-4 /E/CIT(A)-II/2013-14 dated 29- 03-2017 deleted the disallowance of Rs. 42,18,575/- made

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

57,98,420/- after making various additions/disallowance, including the disallowances of Rs.42,18,575/- and Rs.1,50,03,709/-. 2. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) vide order in ITA No. 38/R-4 /E/CIT(A)-II/2013-14 dated 29- 03-2017 deleted the disallowance of Rs. 42,18,575/- made

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

section 57 the expenses claimed against income from profession and debited to P&L account was disallowed. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure on the basis of the sworn statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act of Shri Russel Mehta, M.D. of M/s. Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. which was engaged in diamond merchandise and based in Bombay, that

M/S. MAVOOR TRADE LINKS,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K.

57(iii). 2) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), Chandigarh reported in 288 ITR 1 has given a new dimension to expression "commercial expediency" and clarified the concept of "for purpose of business". In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined commercial expediency as an expression

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

57(iii) of the Act, where the expression used is ‘for the purpose of making or earning such income.” Section14A of the Act on the other hand contains the expression “in relation to income which does not form part of the total income.” The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that even

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

57(iii) of the Act, where the expression used is ‘for the purpose of making or earning such income.” Section14A of the Act on the other hand contains the expression “in relation to income which does not form part of the total income.” The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that even

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

57(iii) of the Act, where the expression used is ‘for the purpose of making or earning such income.” Section14A of the Act on the other hand contains the expression “in relation to income which does not form part of the total income.” The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that even

M/S.WARRIERS HOSPITAL & PANCHAKARMA CENTRE,KAYAMKULAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

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

depreciation on furniture, fittings, plant and machinery etc. in terms of section 57(iii) of the I.T. Act which reads

M/S.WARRIERS HOSPITAL & PANCHAKARMA CENTRE,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, , ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

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

depreciation on furniture, fittings, plant and machinery etc. in terms of section 57(iii) of the I.T. Act which reads

M/S.WARRIERS HOSPITAL & PANCHAKARMA CENTRE,KAYAMKULAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

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

depreciation on furniture, fittings, plant and machinery etc. in terms of section 57(iii) of the I.T. Act which reads

M/S.WARRIERS HOSPITAL & PANCHAKARMA CENTRE,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, , ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

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

depreciation on furniture, fittings, plant and machinery etc. in terms of section 57(iii) of the I.T. Act which reads

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

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, 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, 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

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