MINA WOOD INDUSTRIES,MATTANNUR vs. ITO, W-3, KANNUR

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhmina Wood Industries The Income Tax Officer Iii/656 B, Kallur Ward - 3, Kannur Mattannur Vs. Kannur 670702 [Pan: Aagfm2716D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

14. Thus, in view of the facts of the case and in the light of observations of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has erred in holding that MSRTC is not a "State" and cash payments made to MSRTC are hit by the provisions of section 40A(3

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance under section 40A(3). The High Court of Bombay upheld the order passed by Tribunal. The SLP filed against the decision of the High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Thus, it was submitted that the AO erred in stating that the assessee had not adhered to the conditions laid down by the CBDT Circular mentioned above

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance under section 40A(3). The High Court of Bombay upheld the order passed by Tribunal. The SLP filed against the decision of the High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Thus, it was submitted that the AO erred in stating that the assessee had not adhered to the conditions laid down by the CBDT Circular mentioned above

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

14. Next comes the issue of RBI penalty imposed for non- compliance of regulatory instructions amounting to Rs.3 crore, which has been disallowed by both the lower authorities u/s.37 Explanation. Case law M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank (2005) 277 ITR (ST) 3 holds that such a penalty imposed by the RBI in regular banking business activities does not attract the impugned disallowance u/s.37

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

14. Next comes the issue of RBI penalty imposed for non- compliance of regulatory instructions amounting to Rs.3 crore, which has been disallowed by both the lower authorities u/s.37 Explanation. Case law M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank (2005) 277 ITR (ST) 3 holds that such a penalty imposed by the RBI in regular banking business activities does not attract the impugned disallowance u/s.37

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

14. Next comes the issue of RBI penalty imposed for non- compliance of regulatory instructions amounting to Rs.3 crore, which has been disallowed by both the lower authorities u/s.37 Explanation. Case law M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank (2005) 277 ITR (ST) 3 holds that such a penalty imposed by the RBI in regular banking business activities does not attract the impugned disallowance u/s.37

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

14. Next comes the issue of RBI penalty imposed for non- compliance of regulatory instructions amounting to Rs.3 crore, which has been disallowed by both the lower authorities u/s.37 Explanation. Case law M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank (2005) 277 ITR (ST) 3 holds that such a penalty imposed by the RBI in regular banking business activities does not attract the impugned disallowance u/s.37

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

14. Next comes the issue of RBI penalty imposed for non- compliance of regulatory instructions amounting to Rs.3 crore, which has been disallowed by both the lower authorities u/s.37 Explanation. Case law M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank (2005) 277 ITR (ST) 3 holds that such a penalty imposed by the RBI in regular banking business activities does not attract the impugned disallowance u/s.37

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

14. Next comes the issue of RBI penalty imposed for non- compliance of regulatory instructions amounting to Rs.3 crore, which has been disallowed by both the lower authorities u/s.37 Explanation. Case law M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank (2005) 277 ITR (ST) 3 holds that such a penalty imposed by the RBI in regular banking business activities does not attract the impugned disallowance u/s.37

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. DCIT (24 taxmann.com 59) (Kochi Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (189 ITR 182) (Ker.) I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 8.6 The Ld. DR submitted that decision relied upon by the assessee was given in an entirely different context. At that point of time income form value added rubber was never

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. DCIT (24 taxmann.com 59) (Kochi Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (189 ITR 182) (Ker.) I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 8.6 The Ld. DR submitted that decision relied upon by the assessee was given in an entirely different context. At that point of time income form value added rubber was never

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. DCIT (24 taxmann.com 59) (Kochi Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (189 ITR 182) (Ker.) I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 8.6 The Ld. DR submitted that decision relied upon by the assessee was given in an entirely different context. At that point of time income form value added rubber was never

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. DCIT (24 taxmann.com 59) (Kochi Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (189 ITR 182) (Ker.) I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 8.6 The Ld. DR submitted that decision relied upon by the assessee was given in an entirely different context. At that point of time income form value added rubber was never

M/S. ASPINWALL & CO. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year:2011- 12

3) dated 31/03/2014 on the limited issue of computing the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D by observing as under: “6. I, therefore, set aside the said order on this limited issue with a direction to the Assessing Officer to recalculate the expenditure disallowable under Rule 14

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

disallowance or addition which increases the profits and gains of the Appellant for A Y 2009-10 would have a cascading effect on the tax holiday benefits available under section 10A / 10B of the Act. The same is in line with the CBDT circular 37/2016 dated 02 November 2016 and was also upheld by the jurisdictional Cochin Tribunal

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

14-15 and Revenue for AY 2012-13 and 2014-15 are concerned, one of the common issues in these appeals is with regard to disallowance of expenditure u/s.14A of the Act. In AY 2011-12, while completing the Assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, the AO added the entire exempt income as addition u/s.14A of the Act by observing

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

14-15 and Revenue for AY 2012-13 and 2014-15 are concerned, one of the common issues in these appeals is with regard to disallowance of expenditure u/s.14A of the Act. In AY 2011-12, while completing the Assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, the AO added the entire exempt income as addition u/s.14A of the Act by observing

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

14-15 and Revenue for AY 2012-13 and 2014-15 are concerned, one of the common issues in these appeals is with regard to disallowance of expenditure u/s.14A of the Act. In AY 2011-12, while completing the Assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, the AO added the entire exempt income as addition u/s.14A of the Act by observing

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

14-15 and Revenue for AY 2012-13 and 2014-15 are concerned, one of the common issues in these appeals is with regard to disallowance of expenditure u/s.14A of the Act. In AY 2011-12, while completing the Assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, the AO added the entire exempt income as addition u/s.14A of the Act by observing