THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

65 ITR 381 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the expenditure is wholly incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee, there was no reason to disallow any portion of Cochin International Airport Ltd. the interest expenditure on imaginary reasons. The judgment dated 08.08.2011 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in K. Raheja Corporation

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

65 ITR 381 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the expenditure is wholly incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee, there was no reason to disallow any portion of Cochin International Airport Ltd. the interest expenditure on imaginary reasons. The judgment dated 08.08.2011 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in K. Raheja Corporation

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

65 ITR 381 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the expenditure is wholly incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee, there was no reason to disallow any portion of Cochin International Airport Ltd. the interest expenditure on imaginary reasons. The judgment dated 08.08.2011 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in K. Raheja Corporation

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

section 32(1) of the Act. The ld. AO is directed to verify the same and grant depreciation in accordance with law. Accordingly ground no. 4 of assessee is allowed with above direction. 12. Thus, ITA No.268/Coch/2023 for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed. 13. ITA No.269/Coch/2023 is filed by assessee against the appellate order passed

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

section 32(1) of the Act. The ld. AO is directed to verify the same and grant depreciation in accordance with law. Accordingly ground no. 4 of assessee is allowed with above direction. 12. Thus, ITA No.268/Coch/2023 for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed. 13. ITA No.269/Coch/2023 is filed by assessee against the appellate order passed

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

section. If the income from a source falls within a specific head set out in s. 6, the fact that it may indirectly be covered by another head will not make the income taxable under the latter head.’[emphasis, ours] The head of income under which a particular income is assessable under the Act is, thus, to be determined with

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

section. If the income from a source falls within a specific head set out in s. 6, the fact that it may indirectly be covered by another head will not make the income taxable under the latter head.’[emphasis, ours] The head of income under which a particular income is assessable under the Act is, thus, to be determined with

MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 the assessee

MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THACIT,CIRCLE-1(1 ), THRISSUR

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

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

depreciation on an asset which, according to him, was put to greater private use than what was claimed in the return, found that even assuming that there was any mistake in it, it was held that the power to reopen the assessment even under section 147(b) does not include the power to correct a mistake. 5) The assesse craves

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRRISSUR vs. MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR

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

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

depreciation on an asset which, according to him, was put to greater private use than what was claimed in the return, found that even assuming that there was any mistake in it, it was held that the power to reopen the assessment even under section 147(b) does not include the power to correct a mistake. 5) The assesse craves

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.

depreciation on an asset which, according to him, was put to greater private use than what was claimed in the return, found that even assuming that there was any mistake in it, it was held that the power to reopen the assessment even under section 147(b) does not include the power to correct a mistake. 5) The assesse craves

NIZAR,THODUPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS,, THODUPUZHA/

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

65,248. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 2 ITA No.825/Coch/2024. Sri.Nizar. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 16.03.2021. In the said assessment order, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter “the AO”) had estimated income from agency business of Rs.7,62,54,049 at 8% and added to the total income

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

65,41,606/- The above mentioned mistakes are apparent from the record and may please be rectified u/s. 154. Till such time as the above mistakes are rectified and the demand revised, we may not be treated as an assessee in default in respect of the tax presently demanded for A. Y.2008-09.” 4. Vide order dated 24/03/2016 passed under section

COMBINED FOODS (P) LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

65,210. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (“the AO”) vide order dated 20.12.2016 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.30,70,400. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs.9,73,497 2 ITA No.862/Coch/2023. Combined Foods (P) Limited. u/s.41(1) of the Income

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly