MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

Section 2(15) will not be applicable in your case and the exemption allowed by Assessing Officer should not be disallowed

MALANADU FARMERS SOCIETY ,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

Section 2(15) will not be applicable in your case and the exemption allowed by Assessing Officer should not be disallowed

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance claim qua its golf course under the head “plant and machinery”. Learned A.R. not only drew strong support from the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion but also produced this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order in Landbase India Ltd. vs. ACIT [2020] 185 ITD 40 (Delhi) (Tribu.). Mr. Gopi takes as to para 6 therein that

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance claim qua its golf course under the head “plant and machinery”. Learned A.R. not only drew strong support from the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion but also produced this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order in Landbase India Ltd. vs. ACIT [2020] 185 ITD 40 (Delhi) (Tribu.). Mr. Gopi takes as to para 6 therein that

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance claim qua its golf course under the head “plant and machinery”. Learned A.R. not only drew strong support from the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion but also produced this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order in Landbase India Ltd. vs. ACIT [2020] 185 ITD 40 (Delhi) (Tribu.). Mr. Gopi takes as to para 6 therein that

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance claim qua its golf course under the head “plant and machinery”. Learned A.R. not only drew strong support from the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion but also produced this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order in Landbase India Ltd. vs. ACIT [2020] 185 ITD 40 (Delhi) (Tribu.). Mr. Gopi takes as to para 6 therein that

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV.CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 2(15), they would become ineligible for such exemption. Thus, pithily put, the issue is as to whether its activity would be one which involves the carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business which would bring it within

KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUTURE DEV CORPORATION(KINFRA),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 2(15), they would become ineligible for such exemption. Thus, pithily put, the issue is as to whether its activity would be one which involves the carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business which would bring it within

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

15. The contention of the learned DR was that in AY 2012-13 and 2014-15, the CIT(A) ought not to have allowed relief to the Assessee and ought to have sustained the disallowance made by the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee’s contention were almost identical to the contentions raised

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

15. The contention of the learned DR was that in AY 2012-13 and 2014-15, the CIT(A) ought not to have allowed relief to the Assessee and ought to have sustained the disallowance made by the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee’s contention were almost identical to the contentions raised

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

15. The contention of the learned DR was that in AY 2012-13 and 2014-15, the CIT(A) ought not to have allowed relief to the Assessee and ought to have sustained the disallowance made by the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee’s contention were almost identical to the contentions raised

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

15. The contention of the learned DR was that in AY 2012-13 and 2014-15, the CIT(A) ought not to have allowed relief to the Assessee and ought to have sustained the disallowance made by the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee’s contention were almost identical to the contentions raised

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

15. The contention of the learned DR was that in AY 2012-13 and 2014-15, the CIT(A) ought not to have allowed relief to the Assessee and ought to have sustained the disallowance made by the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee’s contention were almost identical to the contentions raised

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

15. The contention of the learned DR was that in AY 2012-13 and 2014-15, the CIT(A) ought not to have allowed relief to the Assessee and ought to have sustained the disallowance made by the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee’s contention were almost identical to the contentions raised

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

15 M/s.US Technology Resources Pvt.Ltd. 40(a)(ia) are clearly attracted. Another important factor to be noted is that the section 194J uses words `any sum’ in comparison to section 195 which uses term `any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act’. Thus section 194J presumes that some income is there in every sum paid

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

15 M/s.US Technology Resources Pvt.Ltd. 40(a)(ia) are clearly attracted. Another important factor to be noted is that the section 194J uses words `any sum’ in comparison to section 195 which uses term `any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act’. Thus section 194J presumes that some income is there in every sum paid

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

section 43B. 3. That may be noted that the statutory laws under the respective contribution schemes have provisions to levy interest, penalty etc. for the delayed payment. Hence, disallowing a genuine business expenditure merely on the ground that it has been paid after relevant due date is not justified. 4. The Appellant rely on the judgments in the cases

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

section 14A of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the AO, CIT A) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. That view of the CIT A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, on facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct