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 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

164 (SC) CIT v. G Narasimhan (1999) 102 Taxman 66 (SC) Considering the above, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company had suffered capital losses and the same was disallowed while computing the business income under the normal provisions of the Act but no adjustment was made while computing book profits. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions

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

164 (SC) CIT v. G Narasimhan (1999) 102 Taxman 66 (SC) Considering the above, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company had suffered capital losses and the same was disallowed while computing the business income under the normal provisions of the Act but no adjustment was made while computing book profits. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions

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

164 (SC) CIT v. G Narasimhan (1999) 102 Taxman 66 (SC) Considering the above, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company had suffered capital losses and the same was disallowed while computing the business income under the normal provisions of the Act but no adjustment was made while computing book profits. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions

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

164 (SC) CIT v. G Narasimhan (1999) 102 Taxman 66 (SC) Considering the above, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company had suffered capital losses and the same was disallowed while computing the business income under the normal provisions of the Act but no adjustment was made while computing book profits. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions

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.

164 is against law and contrary to the facts of the case. The addition cannot be made in 143(1) intimation. Under sub clause (v) to section 143 1(a) of the Act, the A.O may made disallowance

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

disallowance of the claim of the assessee. The entire donation received having been spent within the time allowed under the Act, failure to submit accounts in Form No. 10AA within prescribed time does not warrant addition. 9 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 7.5 In the case of Genius Education Society vs. ACIT(Exemptions) in ITA No. 238/Chd/2018 dated 20th August, 2018, the ITAT

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

disallowance of the claim of the assessee. The entire donation received having been spent within the time allowed under the Act, failure to submit accounts in Form No. 10AA within prescribed time does not warrant addition. 9 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 7.5 In the case of Genius Education Society vs. ACIT(Exemptions) in ITA No. 238/Chd/2018 dated 20th August, 2018, the ITAT

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

disallowance of the claim of the assessee. The entire donation received having been spent within the time allowed under the Act, failure to submit accounts in Form No. 10AA within prescribed time does not warrant addition. 9 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 7.5 In the case of Genius Education Society vs. ACIT(Exemptions) in ITA No. 238/Chd/2018 dated 20th August, 2018, the ITAT

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

disallowance of the claim of the assessee. The entire donation received having been spent within the time allowed under the Act, failure to submit accounts in Form No. 10AA within prescribed time does not warrant addition. 9 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 7.5 In the case of Genius Education Society vs. ACIT(Exemptions) in ITA No. 238/Chd/2018 dated 20th August, 2018, the ITAT

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

disallowance of the claim of the assessee. The entire donation received having been spent within the time allowed under the Act, failure to submit accounts in Form No. 10AA within prescribed time does not warrant addition. 9 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 7.5 In the case of Genius Education Society vs. ACIT(Exemptions) in ITA No. 238/Chd/2018 dated 20th August, 2018, the ITAT

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

disallowance of the claim of the assessee. The entire donation received having been spent within the time allowed under the Act, failure to submit accounts in Form No. 10AA within prescribed time does not warrant addition. 9 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 7.5 In the case of Genius Education Society vs. ACIT(Exemptions) in ITA No. 238/Chd/2018 dated 20th August, 2018, the ITAT

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

disallowance of the claim of the assessee. The entire donation received having been spent within the time allowed under the Act, failure to submit accounts in Form No. 10AA within prescribed time does not warrant addition. 9 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 7.5 In the case of Genius Education Society vs. ACIT(Exemptions) in ITA No. 238/Chd/2018 dated 20th August, 2018, the ITAT

PREETHI JOHN MUTHOOT,THIRUVANATHAPURAM vs. DCIT/ CENTRAL CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhpreethi John Muthoot Dcit, Central Circle - 1 Moothoot Centre, Punnen Road Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thiruvananthapuram 695001 Kawdiar [Pan: Acrpj5145J] Trivandrum 695003 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 14A r.w. rule 8D disallowance of Rs.69,35,551/-; without even giving a categorical finding about the assessee having not derived any exempt income as per her books of account pertaining to the relevant previous year. This being the clinching admitted fact, case law in CIT v. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 97 (Guj.); Cheminvest

APOLLO TYRES LTD.,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.09.2025

164/-. However, subsequently the order was rectified u/s. 154 of the Act on 12.06.2023 as under in respect of the following segments: - a) Software development segments of Rs. 56,48,130/- b) Recovery of expenses of Rs. 3,07,02,519 4. On receipt of the TPO’s order, the AO passed draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. PCIT, , THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Pcit, Aayakar Bhavan, North Block, ……………… Respondent New Annex Building Mananchira, Kozhikode Kerala.

disallowed on the ground that AO has not conducted inquiry regarding the claim of bad debts. As stated in earlier para, the full details of the claim were furnished to NeAC detailing the fact that there was no opening credit balance in provision for bad and doubtful debts account u/s 36(1)(viia) for tax purposes and hence the claim

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before