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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3,27,15,858/-. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 45, 30,81, 080/- was arrived at; eligible for deduction. The provision created being Rs. 97, 03,05,677/-. There was a disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3,27,15,858/-. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 45, 30,81, 080/- was arrived at; eligible for deduction. The provision created being Rs. 97, 03,05,677/-. There was a disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3,27,15,858/-. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 45, 30,81, 080/- was arrived at; eligible for deduction. The provision created being Rs. 97, 03,05,677/-. There was a disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3,27,15,858/-. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 45, 30,81, 080/- was arrived at; eligible for deduction. The provision created being Rs. 97, 03,05,677/-. There was a disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank

KINGS INFRA VENTURES LTD,THEVARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

section 24(3) of the Act that the loss cannot be set off against the income of the subsequent year is not binding on the assessee.” In other words, the non-preference of appeal by the assessee for AY 1950-51 would not in any manner impact it’s right to claim the set off of assessed loss for that

MR.SEEGLIN JOSE MORAIS OUSEPH,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10

131 and 245U of the Income Tax Act vis-à-vis order 19 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code had been totally neglected by the authorities. I.T.A. No.472/Coch/2018 2. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) ought to have found that the cash credits of Rs.20,18,000/- with ICICI Bank does not constitute taxable income

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)

131, 163, 164/Coch/2017. Relying on the same, the disallowance is hereby deleted and this ground of appeal of the appellant is allowed.” 3.1 The assessee had raised additional claim of revising the error committed by offering the Tea Board Orthodox Subsidy entirely under central income instead of treating the same as Page 6 of 17 consolidated income with the benefit

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. .......... Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aabck1582H] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle- 2(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

disallowance u/s. 35(2AB) of Rs. 1,00,80,910/- on the ground that the expenditure relating to research and development was not certified by DSIR in Form 3CL. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal

SRI UMA MAHESHWARA RAO CHINNI,GUNTUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.12.2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The facts and circumstances of the two cases being the same, raising common issues for adjudication, the appeals per taken up together for hearing, and heard together. For technical reasons though; Form 35 being not available on record in Appeal No. 899/Coch/2022, hearing

SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.12.2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The facts and circumstances of the two cases being the same, raising common issues for adjudication, the appeals per taken up together for hearing, and heard together. For technical reasons though; Form 35 being not available on record in Appeal No. 899/Coch/2022, hearing

THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN CHEMICALS LIMITED,UDYOGAMANDAL vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vp & Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 1992-93

disallowed the claim of the assessee. 3. Against this, the assessee came in appeal before this Tribunal. The Tribunal gave finding on this issue vide its order in ITA No. 673/Coch/1995 dated 13/09/1999 which reads as follows: “10. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the orders of the Revenue authorities and the papers relied

THE NEHRU MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KANHANGAD vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, KANNUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of assessee’s appeal contesting the rectification order dated 29.01.2016 rejecting its application u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)] vide his order dated 20.01.2023. 2.1 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

131 14,34,751 Company TOTAL 48,8037,490 14,34,751 3.6 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R. Prakash, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

131 14,34,751 Company TOTAL 48,8037,490 14,34,751 3.6 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R. Prakash, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

131 14,34,751 Company TOTAL 48,8037,490 14,34,751 3.6 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R. Prakash, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

131 14,34,751 Company TOTAL 48,8037,490 14,34,751 3.6 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R. Prakash, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

131 14,34,751 Company TOTAL 48,8037,490 14,34,751 3.6 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R. Prakash, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

131 14,34,751 Company TOTAL 48,8037,490 14,34,751 3.6 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of R. Prakash, as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold various I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 grades of cashew kernels to concerns owned by near relatives at values much lower