ERNAKULAM REGIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNIONS LTD.,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 32(1)(iia) which as submitted is mandatory in nature. It may also be noted that there is no provision in the Act providing that balance 50 % will not be allowed in succeeding year. Reducing grant from WDV for purpose of depreciation The assessee during the year received a grant of Rs.3,72

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

depreciation, from previous assessment years, amounting to Rs.78,63,829/-. The losses were determined, in the respective assessment years, in pursuance of returns filed under section 139(3). and are in accordance with section 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The delay in filing of return for the assessment 'year 2007-08 does not affect the eligibility

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

72 (Cal.) (vi); vii. CIT vs. Indian Sugar Exim Corpn. Ltd. [2012] 206 Taxman 242/19 taxmann.com 158 (Delhi). In the light of the aforesaid legal position the Appellant can well argue that since it had sufficient owned and interest- free funds to make investments during the impugned F.Y. 2008-09, even if he is not able to match entries

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

72 (Cal.) (vi); vii. CIT vs. Indian Sugar Exim Corpn. Ltd. [2012] 206 Taxman 242/19 taxmann.com 158 (Delhi). In the light of the aforesaid legal position the Appellant can well argue that since it had sufficient owned and interest- free funds to make investments during the impugned F.Y. 2008-09, even if he is not able to match entries

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

72 (Cal.) (vi); vii. CIT vs. Indian Sugar Exim Corpn. Ltd. [2012] 206 Taxman 242/19 taxmann.com 158 (Delhi). In the light of the aforesaid legal position the Appellant can well argue that since it had sufficient owned and interest- free funds to make investments during the impugned F.Y. 2008-09, even if he is not able to match entries

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

72 (Cal.) (vi); vii. CIT vs. Indian Sugar Exim Corpn. Ltd. [2012] 206 Taxman 242/19 taxmann.com 158 (Delhi). In the light of the aforesaid legal position the Appellant can well argue that since it had sufficient owned and interest- free funds to make investments during the impugned F.Y. 2008-09, even if he is not able to match entries

M/S.ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPN OF KERALA LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

depreciation. Only business loss u/s 72(1) is ineligible to be carried forward u/s 139(3). The said section is not applicable

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

72(2) read with section 32(2) of the Act would apply with respect to the said income, assumes importance. There again, the crucial aspect relevant for consideration is the nature of the said income. In one of the oldest cases decided by the Honourable Supreme Court, A.Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 it is held that, "there

KITEX GARMENTS LIMITED,KIZHAKKAMBALAM vs. DCIT 1(1), CORPORATE CIRCLE, KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

72,99,38,900/- and the 2 Kitex Garments Ltd. same was revised on 30.11.2015 at a total income Rs. 71,57,09,870/- The disparity between returned and assessed income is on account of reducing the capital subsidy of Rs. 5,93,99,739/- from the value of block of assets for the purpose of claiming depreciation and claiming

CABOT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of on the afore-stated terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascabot Technology Solutions Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax – 1 204, 2Nd Floor, Lulu Cyber Tower Vs. Cr Building , Is Press Infopark, Kochi 682042 Road, Kochi 682018 [Pan:Aadcc 9320K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Allen Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Revision Of It’S Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 20.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Act (Pr. Cit), Vide His Order Dated 18.01.2022. 2.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Company In Software Development Business, Returned, For The Relevant Year, An Income Of Rs.3,67,574 Under The Regular Provisions Of The Act & A Book-Profit Of Rs.14,33,474 U/S.115Jb Of The Act, Paying The Higher Tax On The Latter. The Same Was Subject To Regular Assessment, Determining The Income Under The Regular Provisions At Rs. 8,10,750 & At The Returned Book-Profit Under Mat Provisions. The Assessment Record Was Subsequently Examined By The Learned Pr. Cit In Exercise Of His Revisionary

depreciation in a higher sum, even as the same would not impact the tax liability, being still higher u/s.115JB of the Act. As regards deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act, the amendment to the said section by Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 01.04.2018, made it amply clear that the deduction thereunder is to be with reference to the ‘total income’ computed

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

72,558 The same being confirmed in first appeal, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. Before us, the Revenue’s case is the similarity in the facts and circumstances, which had found approval of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, whose order in relevant part, also relied upon by the FAA, is as under

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

72,558 The same being confirmed in first appeal, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. Before us, the Revenue’s case is the similarity in the facts and circumstances, which had found approval of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, whose order in relevant part, also relied upon by the FAA, is as under

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

72,558 The same being confirmed in first appeal, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. Before us, the Revenue’s case is the similarity in the facts and circumstances, which had found approval of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, whose order in relevant part, also relied upon by the FAA, is as under

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

72,558 The same being confirmed in first appeal, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. Before us, the Revenue’s case is the similarity in the facts and circumstances, which had found approval of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, whose order in relevant part, also relied upon by the FAA, is as under

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

72,558 The same being confirmed in first appeal, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. Before us, the Revenue’s case is the similarity in the facts and circumstances, which had found approval of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, whose order in relevant part, also relied upon by the FAA, is as under

M/S SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

72,558 The same being confirmed in first appeal, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. Before us, the Revenue’s case is the similarity in the facts and circumstances, which had found approval of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, whose order in relevant part, also relied upon by the FAA, is as under

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

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