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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 14A Cochin International Airport Ltd. read with Rule Rule 8D. The decisions of the Kolkata and Chennai Benches of the ITAT in the cases of ITO vs. Narain Prasad Dalmia: ITA No. 1180/K/2011 for the AY 2008-09 and ACIT v. Best & Crompton Engg Ltd. ITA No.1603/Mds/2012 for the AY 2009-10 too are applicable. fff) On the debate

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 14A Cochin International Airport Ltd. read with Rule Rule 8D. The decisions of the Kolkata and Chennai Benches of the ITAT in the cases of ITO vs. Narain Prasad Dalmia: ITA No. 1180/K/2011 for the AY 2008-09 and ACIT v. Best & Crompton Engg Ltd. ITA No.1603/Mds/2012 for the AY 2009-10 too are applicable. fff) On the debate

THE PARAKODE SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ADOOR vs. THE ITO,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Parakode Service Co-Op. The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward 4, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Parakode, Adoor Karbala Junction Pathanamthitta 691554 Kollam 691001 Pan – Aaajt1587B Appellant Respondent

disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Act because the assessee filed the return of income belatedly as prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. We observe that the questions raised by the assessee as per his grounds of appeal has been very much answered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of AA520 Veerappampalayam

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

138 taxmann.co m 571 7 Aroor Co-Operative Urbn Society (Madras). In this case the assessee filed his return of income belatedly and return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act by observing that “in schedule Chapter VI-A, under Part-C deduction in respect of certain incomes, in Sl.No. 2.1 deduction is claimed under Section

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.KUNNEL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS P. LTD, KOCHI

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

disallowance of deduction by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court was not considering the issue whether the service tax collected and the remaining unpaid till the due date of furnishing of the return forms the part of the total income for the current year. (iii) DCIT v Manish M Chheda

THE MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO.LTD.,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Mathrubhumi Printing & Dcit, Circle-1(1) & Tps Publishing Company Ltd. Kozhikode Vs. K.P. Kesavamenon Road Calicut 673001 Pan – Aaact8521G Appellant Respondent

138 taxmann.com 571 (Madras) has held in regard to adjustments made under Section 143(1)(a) in favour of the Revenue which is as under: - “7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments based upon errors apparent fr0111 the return of income and patent from the record. Thus

THOMSON GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOMBODINJAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Thomson Granites Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant X/616, Kambodinjamakkal Thazhekkad P.O., Thrissur 680697 [Pan: Aacct0876E] Vs. Acit, Circle - 1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Municipal Office Road Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680001 Appellant By: Shri Aneesh Vishwanathan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2025

138 Taxman 231 (Del) iii) K. Abdu & Co. v. ITO [2008] 170 Taxman 297 (Ker) However, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions, while holding that section 40(a)(ia) had no application in respect of Directors’ remuneration. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. The learned A.R. submits that provisions of section

BLOSSOM INNERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2023-24

disallowance by the authorities below is not correct. The Ld.AR also submitted that the assessee had complied with all the eligibility criteria prescribed u/s. 80JJAA of the Act to claim the said deduction but the said deduction was denied on the technical reason that the Form 10DA was not filed before the due date for filing the return

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

SRI.KRISHNAN ACHARY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WD-3,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K.

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 10(10C) of the I.T. Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 2008-09, the return of income was filed on 29/07/2008 declaring total income of Rs.3,03,310/-. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year

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

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

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

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

ABC BUILDWAERS INDIA (P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

ABC BUILDWARES(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1`, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

MUAHAMMED JABIR,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT< CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

ABC BUILDWARES INDIA(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming