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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10 (34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of Section 14A of the Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income as held in Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. case. Therefore

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10 (34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of Section 14A of the Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income as held in Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. case. Therefore

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10 (34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of Section 14A of the Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income as held in Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. case. Therefore

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10 (34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of Section 14A of the Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income as held in Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. case. Therefore

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10% of the former amount. ww) It cannot therefore prima facie be held that the Appellant had been making investments that took and kept away large portions of its business funds towards earning tax- exempt incomes. A separate discussion is that of whether the investments have been made with strategic as against narrow business intent/purpose. A strategic investment

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10% of the former amount. ww) It cannot therefore prima facie be held that the Appellant had been making investments that took and kept away large portions of its business funds towards earning tax- exempt incomes. A separate discussion is that of whether the investments have been made with strategic as against narrow business intent/purpose. A strategic investment

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10% of the former amount. ww) It cannot therefore prima facie be held that the Appellant had been making investments that took and kept away large portions of its business funds towards earning tax- exempt incomes. A separate discussion is that of whether the investments have been made with strategic as against narrow business intent/purpose. A strategic investment

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10% of the former amount. ww) It cannot therefore prima facie be held that the Appellant had been making investments that took and kept away large portions of its business funds towards earning tax- exempt incomes. A separate discussion is that of whether the investments have been made with strategic as against narrow business intent/purpose. A strategic investment

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)

10 of 17 Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4.9 We therefore direct the Ld.AO to compute the benefit as per Rule 8 on the subsidy received towards manufacture of orthodox tea. Accordingly, Ground no. 1 raised by assessee stands allowed. 5. Ground no. 2 relates

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

25 86 26 of the judgment in Rajedra Kumar's case. Without prejudice to the above contention that section 40(a)(ia) has no application on the facts of the appellant case, the appellant is advised to submit that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would apply only to the amounts which remain payable

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

10 Ayurgreen Ayurveda Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second is deemed an income, by definition, since it is the deduction from the employees’ income and held in trust by the employer. This marked distinction has to be borne while interpreting the obligation of every assessee under

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

disallowed the following as tabulated below: - Particulars Amount R&D expense incurred by reimbursement of salary 12,81,14,109 and other expenses of Apollo Vrerdestein B.V., Netherlands; Vrerdestein GmbH, Germany and Apollo Tyres Global R&D B.V., Netherlands R&D expense incurred for testing of tyres outside 1,25,10,307 India Other R& D expenses incurred at Limda

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 29.12.2010 for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. ITA Nos. 54& 84/Coch/2012 (AY: 2008-09) P.C. Jose v. Dy CIT / Dy. CIT v. P.C. Jose Ex-parte Order 2. The appeals were heard at length on 10.08.2023, covering all the issues, including the principal one, being the assessment

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

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

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

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

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

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

25-9-2014. Out of the above total extent the assessee's portion admeasuring 4.98 acres of land was sold for Rs 1,49,50,575/- The portion admeasuring 20.61 acres of land belonging to the assessee's husband was sold for consideration of Rs 6,19,76,305/-. After claiming indexed cost of acquisition by the assesee, the long

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

25-9-2014. Out of the above total extent the assessee's portion admeasuring 4.98 acres of land was sold for Rs 1,49,50,575/- The portion admeasuring 20.61 acres of land belonging to the assessee's husband was sold for consideration of Rs 6,19,76,305/-. After claiming indexed cost of acquisition by the assesee, the long