FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank is that, in fact, the assessee had written off the said amounts and hence there could be a deduction claimed under Section

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank is that, in fact, the assessee had written off the said amounts and hence there could be a deduction claimed under Section

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank is that, in fact, the assessee had written off the said amounts and hence there could be a deduction claimed under Section

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank is that, in fact, the assessee had written off the said amounts and hence there could be a deduction claimed under Section

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10. The Revenue’s third ground in AY 2011-12 appeal raises the issue of section 36(1)(va) disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10. The Revenue’s third ground in AY 2011-12 appeal raises the issue of section 36(1)(va) disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10. The Revenue’s third ground in AY 2011-12 appeal raises the issue of section 36(1)(va) disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10. The Revenue’s third ground in AY 2011-12 appeal raises the issue of section 36(1)(va) disallowance

LAXMI MEGHAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KANHANGAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, KANNUR, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2012-13 M/S. Laxmi Meghan Educational Trust, Ito (Exemptions), Vs. Kmc W1/1504, Surgicare Centre & Hospital, Kannur – 670 006. Kasargode District, Kerala. Pan :Aaatl8244M Assessee Respondent

sections 12AA and 10(23C) (vi). 3. The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in rejecting the prayer u/s. 10(23C) (iii ad) stating that " There are no documents on record to show that during the financial year under consideration, the assessee trust existed solely for educational propose and not for purposes of profit and that the aggregate annual receipts

M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS COMPANY P. LTD,IDUKKI vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

section 10(30) are very specific and Page 4 of 17 clear on the nature of benefit to be granted to the assessee on subsidy receipts. It was also observed that there was no ambiguity in the intention of the Government in not notifying the subsidy in question that the same was not eligible for exemption u/s.10

KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUTURE DEV CORPORATION(KINFRA),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance made by the Assessing Authority. The Department carried the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, in turn, made reference to the contentions of the parties and the arguments advanced by the respective learned counsel and referred to the judgments, particularly that rendered by the Orissa High Court in CIT v. M.P.Bajaj

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV.CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance made by the Assessing Authority. The Department carried the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, in turn, made reference to the contentions of the parties and the arguments advanced by the respective learned counsel and referred to the judgments, particularly that rendered by the Orissa High Court in CIT v. M.P.Bajaj

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

disallowance of the said expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of IT Act. 18. With a view to mitigate this hardship, Section 40(a)(ia) was amended by the Finance Act, 2008 and the provision so amended read as under:— "40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing

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

disallowed the excess depreciation on residential building of Rs. 6,48,210/-. 3. The factual background of the above addition is that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration the appellant company received capital subsidy of Rs. 5,93,99,739/- and interest subsidy of Rs. 12,05,749/- under the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS

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

Section 36 and 43B a dear message given by the Hon'ble Finance Minister that the Government does not wish to allow employers to use the money deducted from the salary of employees. Accordingly, amount of employee's contribution must get deposited within the dates specified under the respective Act to remain eligible for the deduction u/s 36. 6.3 Since

VAM GROUP HI-TECH ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Vam Group Hi-Tech Engineering Dcit, Circle - 1 Pvt. Ltd. Alappuzha X/685, Vam House, Vs. Pathirappally P.O., Alappuzha 688521 [Pan: Aaacv6606N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 2,87,000/- under the provisions of section 14A r.w. rule 8D of I.T. Rules. 3. The AO, during the assessment proceedings, found that the assessee has earned dividend income amounting to Rs.9,600/- which was claimed as exempted u/s 10

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

10 Assessment Year 2013-2014 disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and submitted that loss on onerous contract was merely a provision for unascertained liability and therefore, deduction could not be allowed for the same. It was submitted that DRP has observed that the liability of the assessee did not arise during the relevant previous year as the settlement deeds

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance arose consequent to an amendment that was effected to the provisions of Sections 36(1)(viii) with effect from 01.04.2010 through the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009. The appellant-Bank was engaged in the business of providing housing loans for purchase or construction of houses, and had been obtaining the benefit of the deduction contemplated under Section 36(1)(viii