THE ITO, COCHIN vs. M/S.PESCAINDE, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections of the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

disallowed by the Learned Assessing Officer." In the instant case, the scrutiny 'assessment was completed' on 27.09.2013 allowing assessee's claim for exemption u/s 10B. Subsequently, the case was 7 I.T.A. Nos. 227-229/Coch/2019 & C.O. Nos. 26 to 28/Coch/2019 set aside u/s 263 with a direction to re-examine the claim of the assessee u/s 10B was denied because

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. JTCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowing the deduction under section 10B of the Act, has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the alternate claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act, which is para materia as that of section 10B of the Act, made by the Assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. Without prejudice to the above, the learned JCIT

THE JT CIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowing the deduction under section 10B of the Act, has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the alternate claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act, which is para materia as that of section 10B of the Act, made by the Assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. Without prejudice to the above, the learned JCIT

KRYTHIUM SOLUTIONS P.LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K

disallowance of deduction u/s. 10B was upheld. Regarding alternate claim of deduction u/s. 10A, the DRP confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer. 13.3 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the DRP and the A.O. was bound to examine and grant the alternative claim u/s. 10A of the Act to the assessee

KRYTHIUM SOLUTIONS P.LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K

disallowance of deduction u/s. 10B was upheld. Regarding alternate claim of deduction u/s. 10A, the DRP confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer. 13.3 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the DRP and the A.O. was bound to examine and grant the alternative claim u/s. 10A of the Act to the assessee

KRYTHIUM SOLUTIONS P.LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K

disallowance of deduction u/s. 10B was upheld. Regarding alternate claim of deduction u/s. 10A, the DRP confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer. 13.3 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the DRP and the A.O. was bound to examine and grant the alternative claim u/s. 10A of the Act to the assessee

KRYTHIUM SOLUTIONS P.LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K

disallowance of deduction u/s. 10B was upheld. Regarding alternate claim of deduction u/s. 10A, the DRP confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer. 13.3 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the DRP and the A.O. was bound to examine and grant the alternative claim u/s. 10A of the Act to the assessee

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

disallowed the amount. The learned CIT(A), after considering the judgement quoted in his order, allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Considering the rival submissions we observed that the CIT(A) has decided the issue as under: - “8. I have considered the issue, arguments advanced and the case laws cited. Apparently, it is not in dispute that the payments

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions in respect of certain income’, no deduction shall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said provisions

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions in respect of certain income’, no deduction shall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said provisions

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions in respect of certain income’, no deduction shall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said provisions

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions in respect of certain income’, no deduction shall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said provisions

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

10A\nor section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this\nChapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions in respect of certain income', no deduction\nshall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with\ndeductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said\nprovisions

THE KADAVALUR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO3821,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GURUVAYUR

In the result, the appeal and Stay Application filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Stay Application No. 150/Coch/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 637/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

disallowance made by the ld. A.O. on this ground. It is pertinent to point out that the first appellate authority has not decided the section 80P deduction on the merits as to whether the assessee is a Co-operative Bank or a PACS as claimed by the assessee. The assessee, on the other hand, contended that

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 10A deduction of Rs.56,48,936/- which has been upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion as under: - “4.2 Ground No. 2 relates to addition at Rs. 56,48,936/- on account of excess deduction claimed u/s 10A of the Act. The appellant is a private limited company engaged in the manufacturing of connectors, providing computer aided design

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), ERNAKULAM, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 10A deduction of Rs.56,48,936/- which has been upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion as under: - “4.2 Ground No. 2 relates to addition at Rs. 56,48,936/- on account of excess deduction claimed u/s 10A of the Act. The appellant is a private limited company engaged in the manufacturing of connectors, providing computer aided design

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 10A deduction of Rs.56,48,936/- which has been upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion as under: - “4.2 Ground No. 2 relates to addition at Rs. 56,48,936/- on account of excess deduction claimed u/s 10A of the Act. The appellant is a private limited company engaged in the manufacturing of connectors, providing computer aided design

PULPATTA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD-2, TIRUR, TIRUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

disallowed. In appeal, the assessee pressed it’s claim for deduction u/s.80P(1) (r.w.s. 80P(2)(a)(i)) on the basis of the decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC). The same was found ineligible inasmuch as the assessee had not claimed deduction u/s.80P per it’s return or revised return