THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD.,KOLLAM vs. THE DICT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasthe Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Sankaramangalam Circle - 1, Kollam Chavara, Kollam 691001 Vs. [Pan:Aaact8118R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub- section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased

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 148 for A.Y.2009-10 are as 1. Brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 have not been correctly declared by the assessee in the return. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of Rs.40,96,155/- from business loss of Rs.24,20,60,716/- which is not proper. 3. Additional depreciation of Rs.17,73,077/- has been claimed

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 148 for A.Y.2009-10 are as 1. Brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 have not been correctly declared by the assessee in the return. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of Rs.40,96,155/- from business loss of Rs.24,20,60,716/- which is not proper. 3. Additional depreciation of Rs.17,73,077/- has been claimed

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 148 for A.Y.2009-10 are as 1. Brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 have not been correctly declared by the assessee in the return. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of Rs.40,96,155/- from business loss of Rs.24,20,60,716/- which is not proper. 3. Additional depreciation of Rs.17,73,077/- has been claimed

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

M/S.KERALA CARS P.LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhkerala Cars Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(2) 508-A, Illikkattu Building C.R. Building, I.S. Press Kunamthai, Edappally Vs. Road Kochi 682024 Kochi 682018 [Pan: Aabck4746M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

155/- it emerges at the outset that the assessee had not derived any exempt income in the relevant previous year. That being the case we quote CIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd., [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Del.) and PCIT vs. Kohinoor Projects (P) Ltd., [2020] 121 taxmann.com 177 (Bom.) to name a few judicial precedents, to conclude that the impugned

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 KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

section\n139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the\nappellant for AY 2014-15. However, the National Faceless\nAssessment Centre (hereinafter called \"the AO\"), based on the\ninformation that the appellant made cash deposit formed an opinion\nthat income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148\nof the Act was issued

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2014-15. However, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2014-15. However, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued

ANVAR ALI POOLAKKODAN,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, TIRUR, TIRUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Anvar Ali Poolakkodan, The Income Tax Poolakkodan House, Officer, Randathani (Po), Ward – 1 & Tps, Malappuram District – Tirur. 676 510. Vs. Pan: Bctpp4669J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K Kittunair, Advocate : Smt J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. Revenue By Ar Date Of Hearing : 11-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22.03.2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

155/- with interest at the rate of 9% pa. for a period of one year from 23.04.2014 and thereafter at the rate of 15% pa. till the date of payment. The Ld.AO noted that assessee was one of the co-owners of the land acquired by Government of Kerala and assessee’s share amounted to Rs.66,30,466/- being

K.ABDUL VAHEED,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

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 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

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