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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

ii) of the Rules. The following were the observations of the Tribunal. “6. Ground No. 2 relates to disallowance conformed by Ld. CIT (A) under rule 8D (iii) of Income Tax Rules, 1963. 6.1. At the outset, Ld.Counsel submitted that, this issue stands squarely covered by following observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investments

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

ii) of the Rules. The following were the observations of the Tribunal. “6. Ground No. 2 relates to disallowance conformed by Ld. CIT (A) under rule 8D (iii) of Income Tax Rules, 1963. 6.1. At the outset, Ld.Counsel submitted that, this issue stands squarely covered by following observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investments

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

ii) of the Rules. The following were the observations of the Tribunal. “6. Ground No. 2 relates to disallowance conformed by Ld. CIT (A) under rule 8D (iii) of Income Tax Rules, 1963. 6.1. At the outset, Ld.Counsel submitted that, this issue stands squarely covered by following observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investments

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

ii) of the Rules. The following were the observations of the Tribunal. “6. Ground No. 2 relates to disallowance conformed by Ld. CIT (A) under rule 8D (iii) of Income Tax Rules, 1963. 6.1. At the outset, Ld.Counsel submitted that, this issue stands squarely covered by following observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investments

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

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

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

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

ii) the expenditure incurred in connection with the purchase and installation of plant and machinery was capital in nature and thus disallowable, and (iii) the pre-operative expenses could not be written off at one go but had to be capitalised and admissible depreciation allowed thereon: Held, dismissing the appeal, that the new unit was a part of the existing

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

disallowance. The assessee must succeed for this reason as well.” 9. With our utmost respect to the findings of the co-ordinate bench [supra], we are of the considered view that the co-ordinate bench has ignored the binding ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd [supra]. It would be pertinent

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

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

25 Junaid KN -do- 2020-21 500/COCH/2024 26 Abdul Vaheed -do- 2017-18 501/COCH/2024 27 Abdul Vaheed -do- 2018-19 502/COCH/2024 28 Abdul Vaheed -do- 2019-20 503/COCH/2024 29 Abdul Vaheed -do- 2020-21 504/COCH/2024 30 Ruchit ACIT, Central 2018-19 Circle -1, 505/COCH/2024 Calicut 31 Ruchit ACIT, Central 2019-20 Circle, 506/COCH/2024 Kozhikode 32 Ruchit -do- 2020-21 507/COCH/2024

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

25 Junaid KN -do- 2020-21 500/COCH/2024 26 Abdul Vaheed -do- 2017-18 501/COCH/2024 27 Abdul Vaheed -do- 2018-19 502/COCH/2024 28 Abdul Vaheed -do- 2019-20 503/COCH/2024 29 Abdul Vaheed -do- 2020-21 504/COCH/2024 30 Ruchit ACIT, Central 2018-19 Circle -1, 505/COCH/2024 Calicut 31 Ruchit ACIT, Central 2019-20 Circle, 506/COCH/2024 Kozhikode 32 Ruchit -do- 2020-21 507/COCH/2024