M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS CO. P. LTD,MUNNAR vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

section 10(30) of the Act, the alternate plea raised, namely Tea Board subsidy should be taken as capital receipt, has been rendered infructuous and dismiss the additional ground raised as dismissed. 15.2 As regards the claim of restricting disallowance by invoking the provisions of Rule 8d r.w.s. 14A of the Act, we have restricted the disallowance to Rs.2,27

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

section 10(30) of the Act, the alternate plea raised, namely Tea Board subsidy should be taken as capital receipt, has been rendered infructuous and dismiss the additional ground raised as dismissed. 15.2 As regards the claim of restricting disallowance by invoking the provisions of Rule 8d r.w.s. 14A of the Act, we have restricted the disallowance to Rs.2,27

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

section 10(30) of the Act, the alternate plea raised, namely Tea Board subsidy should be taken as capital receipt, has been rendered infructuous and dismiss the additional ground raised as dismissed. 15.2 As regards the claim of restricting disallowance by invoking the provisions of Rule 8d r.w.s. 14A of the Act, we have restricted the disallowance to Rs.2,27

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ERNAKULAM

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) of the Act, deduction allowable was up to 7.58 of the total income before deduction of this provision and deduction under Chapter VIA and 10% of the aggregate advances of rural branches. There is no dispute with respect to the limit of 7.58 on total income, which was assessee Bank. The Assessing Officer hence rightly computed 10

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) of the Act, deduction allowable was up to 7.58 of the total income before deduction of this provision and deduction under Chapter VIA and 10% of the aggregate advances of rural branches. There is no dispute with respect to the limit of 7.58 on total income, which was assessee Bank. The Assessing Officer hence rightly computed 10

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) of the Act, deduction allowable was up to 7.58 of the total income before deduction of this provision and deduction under Chapter VIA and 10% of the aggregate advances of rural branches. There is no dispute with respect to the limit of 7.58 on total income, which was assessee Bank. The Assessing Officer hence rightly computed 10

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) of the Act, deduction allowable was up to 7.58 of the total income before deduction of this provision and deduction under Chapter VIA and 10% of the aggregate advances of rural branches. There is no dispute with respect to the limit of 7.58 on total income, which was assessee Bank. The Assessing Officer hence rightly computed 10

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) of the Act, deduction allowable was up to 7.58 of the total income before deduction of this provision and deduction under Chapter VIA and 10% of the aggregate advances of rural branches. There is no dispute with respect to the limit of 7.58 on total income, which was assessee Bank. The Assessing Officer hence rightly computed 10

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) of the Act, deduction allowable was up to 7.58 of the total income before deduction of this provision and deduction under Chapter VIA and 10% of the aggregate advances of rural branches. There is no dispute with respect to the limit of 7.58 on total income, which was assessee Bank. The Assessing Officer hence rightly computed 10

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

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