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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

92 ITD 119 (Trib.) (Delhi.) vi. Paranjape Autocast (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 1090 & 1091 (Trib) (Pune) of 2010, dated 25-6-2012] vii. ITO v. Strides Arcolab Ltd. [2012] 138 (TD 323/24 taxmann.com 89 (Trib.)(Mum.) viii. Yamuna Prasad Peshwa v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 416 (Trib.) (Jodh.) of 2009, dated 9-12-2011] Cochin

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

92 ITD 119 (Trib.) (Delhi.) vi. Paranjape Autocast (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 1090 & 1091 (Trib) (Pune) of 2010, dated 25-6-2012] vii. ITO v. Strides Arcolab Ltd. [2012] 138 (TD 323/24 taxmann.com 89 (Trib.)(Mum.) viii. Yamuna Prasad Peshwa v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 416 (Trib.) (Jodh.) of 2009, dated 9-12-2011] Cochin

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record by to come

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record by to come

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record by to come

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record by to come

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

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

depreciation determined in the scrutiny assessment order passed on 04/03/2016 for the A.Y 2013-14 amounting to Rs. 18,92,878/- was not set off u/s 32(2) while levying tax of Rs.4,05,940/- on Rs. 11,07,430/-, According to section

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

92,464/- reasoning that, "Any sum received from the employees as contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund set up under ESI Act or any other fund for the welfare of employees to the extend not credited to the employees account on or before the due date (36(1)(va)). Accordingly the total income declared

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2018-19 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F Vs.

92 taxmann.com 104 took a view that “Right to Collect Toll” falls within the definition of “commercial right” to intangible assets as specified under the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Further, the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Ashoka Dhankuni Kharagpur Tollway Ltd [2022] 145 taxmann.com 97 (Pune – Trib.), which

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)

92 ITR (Trib) 332 (Mumbai); [2022] 136 taxmann.com 42 (Mumbai). #*#[2022] 139 taxmann.com 286 (Jaipur). Page No : 0641 case is that of creation, whereas, the second is that of "transfer" entitled to the right in action. 18. In view of the above, the provisions of section 56(2) would not be applicable to the issue of new shares which

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