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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

193 & 304/Coch/2017 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 20120-13 & 2007-08 Cochin International DCIT, Circle 1(1), Airport Ltd. GCDA Range 1 vs. Commercial Complex Kochi Marine Drive, Kochi. PIN - 682031 PAN: AAACC9658B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : 22.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 ORDER PER BENCH : The instant batch of four Revenue’s appeals pertains to a single assessee herein

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

193 & 304/Coch/2017 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 20120-13 & 2007-08 Cochin International DCIT, Circle 1(1), Airport Ltd. GCDA Range 1 vs. Commercial Complex Kochi Marine Drive, Kochi. PIN - 682031 PAN: AAACC9658B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : 22.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 ORDER PER BENCH : The instant batch of four Revenue’s appeals pertains to a single assessee herein

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

disallowance of interest expenditure is called for under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.6 In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Assessing Officer correctly assessed the interest income received from partners under the head "Income from Profits and Gains of Profession or Business"? 4.6.1. In para 6 of the assessment order the Assessing

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

disallowance of interest expenditure is called for under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.6 In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Assessing Officer correctly assessed the interest income received from partners under the head "Income from Profits and Gains of Profession or Business"? 4.6.1. In para 6 of the assessment order the Assessing

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

disallowance of interest expenditure is called for under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.6 In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Assessing Officer correctly assessed the interest income received from partners under the head "Income from Profits and Gains of Profession or Business"? 4.6.1. In para 6 of the assessment order the Assessing

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

disallowance of interest expenditure is called for under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.6 In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Assessing Officer correctly assessed the interest income received from partners under the head "Income from Profits and Gains of Profession or Business"? 4.6.1. In para 6 of the assessment order the Assessing

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

disallowance of interest expenditure is called for under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.6 In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Assessing Officer correctly assessed the interest income received from partners under the head "Income from Profits and Gains of Profession or Business"? 4.6.1. In para 6 of the assessment order the Assessing

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS,, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

disallowance of interest expenditure is called for under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.6 In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Assessing Officer correctly assessed the interest income received from partners under the head "Income from Profits and Gains of Profession or Business"? 4.6.1. In para 6 of the assessment order the Assessing

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

disallowance of interest expenditure is called for under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.6 In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Assessing Officer correctly assessed the interest income received from partners under the head "Income from Profits and Gains of Profession or Business"? 4.6.1. In para 6 of the assessment order the Assessing

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of interest expenditure is called for under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.6 In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Assessing Officer correctly assessed the interest income received from partners under the head "Income from Profits and Gains of Profession or Business"? 4.6.1. In para 6 of the assessment order the Assessing

M/S.POPULAR FINANCE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of interest expenditure is called for under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.6 In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Assessing Officer correctly assessed the interest income received from partners under the head "Income from Profits and Gains of Profession or Business"? 4.6.1. In para 6 of the assessment order the Assessing

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of interest expenditure is called for under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.6 In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Assessing Officer correctly assessed the interest income received from partners under the head "Income from Profits and Gains of Profession or Business"? 4.6.1. In para 6 of the assessment order the Assessing

M/S.EMPEE CREDIT CORPORATION,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

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

Bench: Shri George George K.

disallowed by invoking provisions of section 40A of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, an addition of Rs.8,99,193/- is made

KKR AGRO MILLS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11 Kkr Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Iii/678, Kkr Building, Okkal Kalady, Circle – 1(2), Ernakulam – 683 550. Kochi. Pan : Aabck 6542 K Assessee Respondent

193=336 ITR 20( Bom) and Punjab Haryana High Court in CIT vs Siya Ram garg HUF , 49 DTR 126= (2011)(237 CTR 321). b) Even though the assessing officer has Referred to this decision in para 4.2.2- page 11 of the Order dated 28.3.2013, this decision has not been considered in a proper manner . The assessing officer has relied

DIADORA SHOES PVT LTD,CALICUT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

disallowing additional depreciation amounting to Rs.59,000/- in respect of new machinery acquired and put to use in the preceding year.” 7. The operative part of the order afore-referred is reproduced as under :- “3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 To begin with, in terms of the law of precedence, the decision

V GUARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VENNALA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

Section 115JB has not been considered by the AO, which is a mistake prejudicial to the interest of revenue.’ That is, non-consideration of certain claims of expenditure for computation of book-profit. The assessee, in reply, admits to the said deficiency, though claims that it would be of no consequence as the tax liability u/s. 115JB, even after considering

THE KOTTAYAM DIST. CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 41(4) to the issue before us. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee is rejected. 9. The next ground, Ground No. G is with regard to disallowance of set off of brought forward losses. The Assessing Officer gave a specific finding that the assessee had set-off the loss brought forward Rs.5,83,60,193

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOTTAYAM vs. SUNITHA MENON, KOTTAYAM

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

193 ITR 669 (Kar.) has observed that "In the absence of any prejudice to the revenue, and the basis of the tax under the Act being to levy tax, as far as possible, on the real income, the approach should be liberal in applying the procedural provisions of the Act. An appeal is but a continuation of the original proceeding