THE MUTHALAMADA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MUTHALAMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PALAKKAD

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

depreciation and demanding a tax and interest of Rs.157,80,080/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 05.12.2024 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee has come in appeal before

THE MUTHALAMADA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MUTHALAMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PALAKKAD

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

depreciation and demanding a tax and interest of Rs.157,80,080/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 05.12.2024 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee has come in appeal before

THE MUTHALAMADA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MUTHALAMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E ASESSEMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

depreciation and demanding a tax and interest of Rs.157,80,080/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 05.12.2024 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee has come in appeal before

THE MUTHALAMADA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MUTHALAMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5, PALAKKAD

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

depreciation and demanding a tax and interest of Rs.157,80,080/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 05.12.2024 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee has come in appeal before

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

63,52,237/- and also reported book profit u/s. 115JB of Rs. 475,51,57,670/-. The return of income was revised on 31.03.2015 declaring income of Rs. 223,80,75,265/- and book profit u/s. 115JB of Rs. 410,09,91,004/-. The assessee company also reported the following international transactions in Form 3CEB: - S.No. Description of Transaction Amount

CARMEL CONVENT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income— (a) ------------------------ (b) ------------------------ (c) ------------------------- (d) income in the form of voluntary contributions made with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution The same is received from the students

M/S.HOTEL ABAD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am M/S.Hotel Abad, The Assistant Commissioner Chullickal, Of Income Tax, V. Kochi-682 005 Circle-1(1), Kerala Cochin, Kerala Pan – Aabfh3482N Appellant Respondent

section 139(3) and is eligible for carry forward. Inadvertently the issue was riot considered in. the appeal submitted on 18-01-2010. Hence the additional grounds of appeal. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. The assessing officer has gone wrong in not allowing the carry forward of the business loss, other than depreciation, from previous assessment years, amounting to Rs.78,63

MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 for depreciation was disallowed by the AO from AY 2011- 12 onwards on the grounds that

MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,WALAYAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 for depreciation was disallowed by the AO from AY 2011- 12 onwards on the grounds that

MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,WALAYAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 for depreciation was disallowed by the AO from AY 2011- 12 onwards on the grounds that

MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,WALAYAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 for depreciation was disallowed by the AO from AY 2011- 12 onwards on the grounds that

SILLS KARINGATTIL JOSE,NEDUMKANDOM vs. ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

63 ITR651 (SC). 13 Sils Karingattil Jose **[1972] 85 ITR 285 (Bom). ***[2014] 45 taxmann.com 176 (Mumbai). #[2019] 101 taxmann.com 122 (Visakhapatnam). ##[2019] 109 taxmann.com 245 (Delhi); [2019] 179 ITD 197 (Delhi). ###[2019] 112 taxmann.com 71 (Visakhapatnam). *#[2020] 119 taxmann.com 362 (Jaipur). #*[2021] 92 ITR (Trib) 332 (Mumbai); [2022] 136 taxmann.com 42 (Mumbai). #*#[2022] 139 taxmann.com 286 (Jaipur). Page

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee’s case being wholly unproved and, two, of land, forming the major proportion of the total consideration, fetching over twice its regular price. Building, a depreciable asset, its valuation

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee’s case being wholly unproved and, two, of land, forming the major proportion of the total consideration, fetching over twice its regular price. Building, a depreciable asset, its valuation

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee’s case being wholly unproved and, two, of land, forming the major proportion of the total consideration, fetching over twice its regular price. Building, a depreciable asset, its valuation

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee’s case being wholly unproved and, two, of land, forming the major proportion of the total consideration, fetching over twice its regular price. Building, a depreciable asset, its valuation

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee’s case being wholly unproved and, two, of land, forming the major proportion of the total consideration, fetching over twice its regular price. Building, a depreciable asset, its valuation

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee’s case being wholly unproved and, two, of land, forming the major proportion of the total consideration, fetching over twice its regular price. Building, a depreciable asset, its valuation

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee’s case being wholly unproved and, two, of land, forming the major proportion of the total consideration, fetching over twice its regular price. Building, a depreciable asset, its valuation