CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION CO.(P) LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

depreciation is claimed 1. Transit Mixers 65,62,774 8,20,346 6,56,277 2. Truck 85,86,528 10,73,316 8,58,653 Total 1,51,49,302 18,93,662 15,14,930 3. Other plant and 9,44,574 machineries Total 24,59,504 5.1 The sample copies of the invoices for the Transit Mixers

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

depreciation carried forward from previous years. For these and other grounds that may be advanced at the time of hearing, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) on the above points may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.” 3. In respect of ground Nos. 2 & 3 there was a disallowance of Rs.55

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

73,83,53,740/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed the excess depreciation claimed without reducing the capital subsidy from the actual cost of assets and treating the interest subsidy of Rs. 12,05,479/- as revenue receipt and disallowed the excess depreciation on residential building of Rs. 6,48,210/-. 3. The factual background of the above addition

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

depreciation; the question is whether the claim of the assessee conforms the deduction permissible under Section 37(1) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the preoperative expenses amounting to Rs.26,97,79,538/- incurred by the assessee are revenue expenses, and are correctly so held by the Tribunal

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS "JRG SECURITIES LTD"),KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 148 for A.Y.2009-10 are as 1. Brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 have not been correctly declared by the assessee in the return. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of Rs.40,96,155/- from business loss of Rs.24,20,60,716/- which is not proper. 3. Additional depreciation of Rs.17,73

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), ERNAKULAM, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 148 for A.Y.2009-10 are as 1. Brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 have not been correctly declared by the assessee in the return. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of Rs.40,96,155/- from business loss of Rs.24,20,60,716/- which is not proper. 3. Additional depreciation of Rs.17,73

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 148 for A.Y.2009-10 are as 1. Brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 have not been correctly declared by the assessee in the return. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of Rs.40,96,155/- from business loss of Rs.24,20,60,716/- which is not proper. 3. Additional depreciation of Rs.17,73

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); Page 3 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Provided that where an assessment under

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); Page 3 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Provided that where an assessment under

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 claimed by the company. The subject matter of the appeal is the same as the matter raised in the proceedings u/s 263 which is barred as per Clause (c) of Explanation 1 of Section 263 of the Act and also by judicial decisions of various courts. 7. For these and other grounds that may be further adduced

PANICHIKANDY MOHANDASAN,KASARGOD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

73,50,420/-. 3. The disallowances, inter alia, with which we are concerned include the disallowance of Rs. 16,40,710/- being the payment made to Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) invoking provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). disallowance of depreciation

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

73,924.49. The assessee has added back the reserves and provisions created during the year amounting to Rs. 2,22,64,406.60 and deducted reserves and provisions released during the year as well as depreciation allowable as per IT rules amounting to Rs. 1,68,78,654.05in order to arrive at the net profit of Rs.1

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

73,924.49. The assessee has added back the reserves and provisions created during the year amounting to Rs. 2,22,64,406.60 and deducted reserves and provisions released during the year as well as depreciation allowable as per IT rules amounting to Rs. 1,68,78,654.05in order to arrive at the net profit of Rs.1

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)

depreciated “FMV” of the company shares already held in light of the foregoing case law, the impugned addition be deleted. 9. The Revenue on the other hand has strongly supported the impugned addition made in the assessee’s hands u/s 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Act. 10. It is in this factual backdrop that we first