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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

80(IA)(4). In this regard, it was submitted that while giving effect to the order of the High Court as above for the AYs 2005-06,2006-07 & 2007-08, the AO had accepted the contentions of the assessee and allowed the Royalty Income from Ground handling and aircraft refueling as income eligible for deduction u/s 80IA. In view

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

80(IA)(4). In this regard, it was submitted that while giving effect to the order of the High Court as above for the AYs 2005-06,2006-07 & 2007-08, the AO had accepted the contentions of the assessee and allowed the Royalty Income from Ground handling and aircraft refueling as income eligible for deduction u/s 80IA. In view

THE ACIT,CIR-1(1),, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the

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

80-IB is allowable on profits of the undertaking Sub-section In computing the depreciation allowance under Yes 6(iv) section

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

80 of the Income tax Act is under challenge as the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the specific provision that business loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed cannot be carried forwarded. 6.For these and other grounds that may be advanced at the time of hearing the order of the learned Commissioner of Incometax

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

section 32 of the Act. Balance additional depreciation cannot be allowed in subsequent AY, i.e. the year under consideration – Rs. 36,21,58,356/- iii. Disallowance of pre-operative expenditure details of which were extracted by the AO vide para 9 of the draft assessment order. These pre-operative expenditure was incurred for the purpose of setting

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

section 80 if return is not filed within due date. In the instant case total loss of Rs.1,76,97,290/- was allowed to be carried forward in the assessment which consists of unabsorbed depreciation

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

80-IC,80ID &80IE if return is filed beyond the due date prescribed by section 139(1). Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act is not included in the said sub clause. The amended section 80AC also shows that if the appellant fails to file return on time for the previous year relating to 2018-19, then

THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

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

80,515/- being the deduction claimed u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act holding that the assessee had not advanced any loan as long term finance for development of housing in India, industrial or agricultural development or development of infrastructure facility in India. 7. On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii

SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

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

80,515/- being the deduction claimed u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act holding that the assessee had not advanced any loan as long term finance for development of housing in India, industrial or agricultural development or development of infrastructure facility in India. 7. On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii

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

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)

depreciable assets, if the period of holding exceeds 36 months, are also eligible for such deduction under section 50/54F of the Act. The ld. AR also contended that cost of improvement was incurred by the assessee at Rs. 12.52 lakhs which should be considered for the purpose of calculating the capital gain. 4 Kumar Madhavanpillai S. 11. On the other

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. MANOHAR HILL CHARITABLE TRUST, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri George George K.

80 of the Act, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed in accordance with the provisions of sub section (3) of section 139 shall be carried forward. Sub section (3) of section 139 makes it amply clear that if the loss is to be carried forward, the return of loss

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. MANOHAR HILL CHARITABLE TRUST, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri George George K.

80 of the Act, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed in accordance with the provisions of sub section (3) of section 139 shall be carried forward. Sub section (3) of section 139 makes it amply clear that if the loss is to be carried forward, the return of loss

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. MANOHAR HILL CHARITABLE TRUST, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri George George K.

80 of the Act, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed in accordance with the provisions of sub section (3) of section 139 shall be carried forward. Sub section (3) of section 139 makes it amply clear that if the loss is to be carried forward, the return of loss

DCIT, KANNUR vs. M/S MANJOO & CO.,, KANNUR

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2006-07

depreciation claimed by the assessee @ 80% was restricted to 10% by the AO. The explanation given by the assessee does not seem acceptable. f. Agents Prize on tickets I.T.A. No.625/ Coch/2017 In the P & L Account the assessee had credited agents prize on super and special tickets at Rs.28,75,287/- in respect of sale of tickets other than Kerala

PARISONS FOODS PRIVATE LTD,CALICUT vs. DCIT , CIRCLE 1(1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.(Through Virtual Hearing) Parisons Foods Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 6/1183, Kunhipari Buildins Kozhikode Calicut 673032 Vs. Pan – Aaccp2898J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Surendranath Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ilaiyaraja, K.S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2024 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 01.02.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is In The Business Of Refining & Sale Of Crude Edible Oil & Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.10.2005 & The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By Accepting The Returns. Subsequently The Cit Invoked His Suo Moto Revision Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act To Disallow The Additional Depreciation Claimed U/S 32(1)(Iia) Of The Act & Directed The Ao To Complete The Assessment De Novo By Considering The Claim Of Additional Depreciation Of 15%. Thereafter The Ld. Ao

section 32(1)(iia) was that it achieves the substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than ten percent. The increase in capacity could be that of an intermediary product also. Your appellant would like to submit that after the expansion project, the installed capacity was enhanced to 90,000 MT for oil refining

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

80-IA from being claimed as deduction under any other provision of Chapter VIA, which is to be limited to the amount of profit or gain of the enterprise, also referring to section 80AB and decision in Motilal Pesticides (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 26 (SC). The unexplained difference between the trading sale of Rs.1424.31 lakhs

M/S.TRIVANDRUM CLUB,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOMETAX( EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Depreciation 11,457 7,80,036 Total Income 5,95,010 I.T.A. No.138/Coch/2017 7.1 However, the Assessing Officer passed the rectification order on 03/06/2008 withdrawing the deduction towards 50% of receipts as exempt at Rs.13,75,041/- and determined the income at Rs.19,70,050/- instead of Rs.5,95,010/-. 7.2 Now the contention of the Ld. AR is that