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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. The assessee’s third substantive ground challenge correctness of the lower authorities action in making sec.36(1)(viii) disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. The assessee’s third substantive ground challenge correctness of the lower authorities action in making sec.36(1)(viii) disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. The assessee’s third substantive ground challenge correctness of the lower authorities action in making sec.36(1)(viii) disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. The assessee’s third substantive ground challenge correctness of the lower authorities action in making sec.36(1)(viii) disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance of provisions of bad and doubtful debts to the extent of Rs. 57.57 crores is deleted. 3. The CIT(A) has erred on the following points while deleting the Book profit enhancement consequent to bad and doubtful debt the extent of Rs. 57.57 crores. 3.1. Vijaya Bank decision is applicable only for normal Income and not MAT Income [Minimum

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6 substantive grounds; assessment year-wise, respectively seeks to treat the interest on passenger service fee deposit as assessee’s taxable income in the corresponding assessment years. We do not see any material in the case which could indicate that the impugned interest income have been accrued or received in assessee’s book so as to treated as taxable

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6 substantive grounds; assessment year-wise, respectively seeks to treat the interest on passenger service fee deposit as assessee’s taxable income in the corresponding assessment years. We do not see any material in the case which could indicate that the impugned interest income have been accrued or received in assessee’s book so as to treated as taxable

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6 substantive grounds; assessment year-wise, respectively seeks to treat the interest on passenger service fee deposit as assessee’s taxable income in the corresponding assessment years. We do not see any material in the case which could indicate that the impugned interest income have been accrued or received in assessee’s book so as to treated as taxable

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6 substantive grounds; assessment year-wise, respectively seeks to treat the interest on passenger service fee deposit as assessee’s taxable income in the corresponding assessment years. We do not see any material in the case which could indicate that the impugned interest income have been accrued or received in assessee’s book so as to treated as taxable

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

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

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 vs CIT reported in (2018) 91 taxman.com 154, in favour of assessee: “36. There

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

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

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 vs CIT reported in (2018) 91 taxman.com 154, in favour of assessee: “36. There

ACIT, KOCHI vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD, ALUVA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

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

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 vs CIT reported in (2018) 91 taxman.com 154, in favour of assessee: “36. There

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

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

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 vs CIT reported in (2018) 91 taxman.com 154, in favour of assessee: “36. There

ACIT, KOCHI vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD, ALUVA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

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

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 vs CIT reported in (2018) 91 taxman.com 154, in favour of assessee: “36. There

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

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

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 vs CIT reported in (2018) 91 taxman.com 154, in favour of assessee: “36. There

ACIT, KOCHI vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD, ALUVA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

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

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 vs CIT reported in (2018) 91 taxman.com 154, in favour of assessee: “36. There

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

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

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 vs CIT reported in (2018) 91 taxman.com 154, in favour of assessee: “36. There

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,ALUVA vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

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

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 vs CIT reported in (2018) 91 taxman.com 154, in favour of assessee: “36. There