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

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

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

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

M/S THE PANNIYANKARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , RANGE 1, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s.80P. The assessed income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 is Rs.1,48,86,392. During the course of assessment proceedings, it has come to light that there were violation of section 269SS and the assessing officer referred the case for initiation of penalty u/s.271D on 01.01.2018. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s.271D was initiated on 03.01.2018. Thereafter

PANAMARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PANAMARAM vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P by holding that the assessee is dealing with the non-members. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). While matter stood thus, the AO noticed that assessee violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act by accepting cash deposits and repaid the deposits in cash. Therefore, made

PANAMARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PANAMARAM, WAYANAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P by holding that the assessee is dealing with the non-members. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). While matter stood thus, the AO noticed that assessee violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act by accepting cash deposits and repaid the deposits in cash. Therefore, made

M/S. THE THIRUNELLY CO-OPERATIVE BANKLTD.,WAYANAD vs. JCIT RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P by holding that the assessee is dealing with the non-members. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). While matter stood thus, the AO noticed that assessee violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act by accepting cash deposits and repaid the deposits in cash. Therefore, made

M/S. THE THIRUNELLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,WAYANAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P by holding that the assessee is dealing with the non-members. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). While matter stood thus, the AO noticed that assessee violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act by accepting cash deposits and repaid the deposits in cash. Therefore, made

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)

Section 244A(3) makes it clear that the same envisages an order for the relevant year, i.e., of the refund. The order by the Hon'ble High Court in the instant case is under it’s appellate jurisdiction, invoked by the assessee in respect of its assessment of AY 2004-05. The same stands disallowed by the Hon'ble High

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. .......... Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aabck1582H] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle- 2(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

disallowance u/s. 35(2AB) of Rs. 1,00,80,910/- on the ground that the expenditure relating to research and development was not certified by DSIR in Form 3CL. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal

SMT. AMINA ANVAR,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

disallowance u/s. 37 of the I.T.Act to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- pertaining to claim of expenses relatable to purchases made. 4. Pursuant to the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961, the penalty proceedings were initiated u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO/NFAC passed penalty order