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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

66 (SC) and more particularly on paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 which reads as under :— '10. The next question is whether the acquisition of such a capital asset is depreciable asset or not? Under section

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

66 (SC) and more particularly on paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 which reads as under :— '10. The next question is whether the acquisition of such a capital asset is depreciable asset or not? Under section

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed depreciation on account of the fact that the equipment for which depreciation was claimed was not used for more than 180 days in the previous year 2007- 08. Thus, the assessee claimed 10% of permissible 20% depreciation in the previous year 2007-08 and claimed

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed depreciation on account of the fact that the equipment for which depreciation was claimed was not used for more than 180 days in the previous year 2007- 08. Thus, the assessee claimed 10% of permissible 20% depreciation in the previous year 2007-08 and claimed

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed depreciation on account of the fact that the equipment for which depreciation was claimed was not used for more than 180 days in the previous year 2007- 08. Thus, the assessee claimed 10% of permissible 20% depreciation in the previous year 2007-08 and claimed

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed depreciation on account of the fact that the equipment for which depreciation was claimed was not used for more than 180 days in the previous year 2007- 08. Thus, the assessee claimed 10% of permissible 20% depreciation in the previous year 2007-08 and claimed

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The assessee could avail 50% of the allowed depreciation on account of the fact that the equipment for which depreciation was claimed was not used for more than 180 days in the previous year 2007- 08. Thus, the assessee claimed 10% of permissible 20% depreciation in the previous year 2007-08 and claimed

POLAKULATH NARAYANAN RENAI MEDICITY,KOCHI vs. THE DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Polakulath Narayanan Renai Dcit, Non Corporate Circle 1(1) Medicity C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Main Road, Palarivattom Vs. Kochi 682018 Kochi 682025 Pan – Aaifp7597B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Swarnalatha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.04.2023 In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Running A Hospital & During The Assessment Year The Assessing Authority Had Capitalised The Interest Component Of The Interior Works For The Reason That The Work Was Done Over A Period Of Time & Hence The Interest Till The Completion Of The Work Is To Be Capitalised. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Also Capitalised The Interest Component On The Capital Asset I.E.On The Sewage Plant Since The Same Was Put Into Use At The Fag End Of The Assessment Year. The Ao Also Treated The Interest On Fixed Deposits As Margin Money Under The Head ‘Income From Other

66,159,being the claim of depreciation on the w.d.v of the capital asset, which was disallowed during the A.Y 2013-14, was claimed in the revised return. The assessee challenged the above said order of the AO before the CIT(A) and contended that the disallowance of interest and treating the same as capital in nature is not correct

KUMAR MADHAVANPILLAI.S,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

66 and contended that the investment was made by the assessee in the residential property. Therefore, the same is eligible for deduction under section 50/54F of the Act. It was also contended by the learned AR that the depreciable

MELATHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-4, TIRUR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhmelattur Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Income Tax Officer Melttur P.O. Ward - 4, Tirur Vs. Malapuram 679326 [Pan: Aacam8880H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 69 r.w.s 115 unexplained investment addition of Rs.1,25,33,000/- as well as recomputed business income by disallowing/ adding various heads of depreciation, etc. to the tune of Rs.1,02,66

CSB BANK LTD ( FORMERLY THE CATHOLIC SRIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE PR CIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

66 of bank report clearly indicates that creation of the provisions from this year has increased the loss. Moreover, as per section 43B(f) any sum payable by the assessee as to employer in lieu of any leave at credit of his employee is an allowable deduction but on actual payment before the return filing due date. In addition

CSB BANK LTD.,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

66 of bank report clearly indicates that creation of the provisions from this year has increased the loss. Moreover, as per section 43B(f) any sum payable by the assessee as to employer in lieu of any leave at credit of his employee is an allowable deduction but on actual payment before the return filing due date. In addition

THE AROOR CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 80AC of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P after making several disallowances. The AO assessed income of Rs. 94,66,941/- under the head ‘business’. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal placing reliance on 3 ITA 371 & 372/Coch/2025/SA 51 & 52/C/2024 The Aroor

THE AROOR CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 80AC of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P after making several disallowances. The AO assessed income of Rs. 94,66,941/- under the head ‘business’. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal placing reliance on 3 ITA 371 & 372/Coch/2025/SA 51 & 52/C/2024 The Aroor

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act applies only to those payments in respect of any expenditure debited to the Profit and Loss account and claimed as a deduction from income. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in affirming the disallowance of car depreciation and interest on car loan made by the Assessing Officer on account

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

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

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, 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