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

THEDCIT, 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

MUTHOOT HEALTHCARE P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE ACIT, , THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

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

66,19,776/-. Thus, total value of the assets as on 31/03/2014 after revaluation was Rs.86,21,37,824/-. After claiming depreciation of Rs.9,77,91,157/- in the A.Y. 2014-15, the WDV of the assets after revaluation, as on 31/03/2014 was shown as Rs.76,43,46,667/-. 3.1 During the FY 2014-15, an addition of Rs.7

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

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

66 (SC) Considering the above, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company had suffered capital losses and the same was disallowed while computing the business income under the normal provisions of the Act but no adjustment was made while computing book profits. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions of section 115JB, only certain items are to be added

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

66 (SC) Considering the above, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company had suffered capital losses and the same was disallowed while computing the business income under the normal provisions of the Act but no adjustment was made while computing book profits. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions of section 115JB, only certain items are to be added

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

66 (SC) Considering the above, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company had suffered capital losses and the same was disallowed while computing the business income under the normal provisions of the Act but no adjustment was made while computing book profits. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions of section 115JB, only certain items are to be added

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

66 (SC) Considering the above, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company had suffered capital losses and the same was disallowed while computing the business income under the normal provisions of the Act but no adjustment was made while computing book profits. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions of section 115JB, only certain items are to be added

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

M/S.KOVILAKAM HOTEL P LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT,, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K.

depreciation was granted on the same. 7.1 Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English by Fowler & Fowler explains the meaning of “to repair” to mean as to restore (buildings, machines, garments, tissues, strength, etc.) to good condition, renovate, mend by replacing or refixing 8 I.T.A. No.715/Coch/2019 parts or compensating loss or exhaustion. Lexicon Webster Dictionary, 1978, (Vol II, page 812) defines