SRI.V.J.FRANCIS M/S.LISCO COIR TEX,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT,, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

197 for the reason that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source on this amount. The only contention raised by the assessee is that since payee had paid ITA Nos.64 & 65/Coch/2019 10 Sri.V.J.Francis. taxes, there cannot be any disallowance in view of second proviso to section

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

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

disallowance of charges paid to MPCMS towards professional charges made by the appellant for non deduction of tax at source on such payments invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had engaged services of an organization called MPCMS for rendering professional services in terms of agreement entered

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

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

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

disallowance of charges paid to MPCMS towards professional charges made by the appellant for non deduction of tax at source on such payments invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had engaged services of an organization called MPCMS for rendering professional services in terms of agreement entered

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

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

disallowance of charges paid to MPCMS towards professional charges made by the appellant for non deduction of tax at source on such payments invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had engaged services of an organization called MPCMS for rendering professional services in terms of agreement entered

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, 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: 01.09.2025

disallowance of charges paid to MPCMS towards professional charges made by the appellant for non deduction of tax at source on such payments invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had engaged services of an organization called MPCMS for rendering professional services in terms of agreement entered

SUD CHEMIE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ALUVA vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), ERNAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 14A is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to the exempt income. This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount. In this case, admittedly, the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.4,000 from investment in shares of Canara Bank, whereas the A.O. has determined

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

disallowance of Rs. 35,28,65,197/- being R&D Revenue Expense and Rs. 1,40,38,500/- being R&D Capital Expense claimed under section

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

197\n271(1)(c)\n2010-11\n8,11,240\n10,71,240\n271(1)(c)\n2011-12\n9,99,970\n9,99,970\nNil\n2012-13\n20,47,120\n22,47,120 271(1)(c)\nYours faithfully,\n(Dr. SANJAY JOSEPH)\nJoint Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Range, Ernakulam\n10.\nThe above communication is nothing but a covering letter forwarding

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

197\n271(1)(c)\n2010-11\n8,11,240\n10,71,240\n271(1)(c)\n2011-12\n9,99,970\n9,99,970\nNil\n2012-13\n20,47,120\n22,47,120 271(1)(c)\nYours faithfully,\n(Dr. SANJAY JOSEPH)\nJoint Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Range, Ernakulam\n10. The above communication is nothing but a covering letter forwarding

THE PULLOOT SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 611,PULLOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raopulloot Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Income Tax Officer Pulloor P.O., Thrissur 680731 Ward - 2(5) Vs. [Pan: Aacat5298C] Thrissur (Appellant) (Respondent)

197/- by disallowing the claim for 2 Pulloot Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. deduction u/s. 80P of the Act by holding that the assessee is not a co-operative society but a co-operative bank hit by the provisions of sub-section

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground of non compliance of clause (b) and clause (c) of section 80IA(4)(i) of the I.T. Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the order of the Assessing Officer and allowed the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IA of the Act. This issue was the subject matter of appeals

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground of non compliance of clause (b) and clause (c) of section 80IA(4)(i) of the I.T. Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the order of the Assessing Officer and allowed the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IA of the Act. This issue was the subject matter of appeals

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground of non compliance of clause (b) and clause (c) of section 80IA(4)(i) of the I.T. Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the order of the Assessing Officer and allowed the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IA of the Act. This issue was the subject matter of appeals

ROSE GEORGE KOLLANUR,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

Section 54 F must be allowed since the assessee has invested the entire sale proceeds for construction of residential property which is within the mandated three years from the date of transfer of original asset. The judgment in the case of Nipun Mehrotra vs. ACIT 2008 197 ITR 110 Bang, reinforced this point and exemption was granted on the same

VAJRA RUBBER PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

Section 36(1)(v). At-least the AO when this factum was brought to his notice that the assessee has filed copy of the trust-deed, application to the competent authority on 4.9.2000 then even the said letter could have been forwarded to the concerned Commissioner who ought to have taken recourse of either rejecting or approving the Gratuity Scheme

UNITY HOSPITAL P. LTD,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

Section 36(1)(v). At-least the AO when this factum was brought to his notice that the assessee has filed copy of the trust-deed, application to the competent authority on 4.9.2000 then even the said letter could have been forwarded to the concerned Commissioner who ought to have taken recourse of either rejecting or approving the Gratuity Scheme

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. 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

197 (Rs.25,40,470 per acre) on 25/03/2009 by the aforesaid legal heirs to Believers Church group vide registered document No.353/1/2009. Hence, it was submitted that the share of Gracy Babu in 8.90 acres comes to 2.97 acres only. According to the Ld. AR, if Rs.10,40,400/- out of 25,40,470/-was taken as consideration in lieu

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. 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

197 (Rs.25,40,470 per acre) on 25/03/2009 by the aforesaid legal heirs to Believers Church group vide registered document No.353/1/2009. Hence, it was submitted that the share of Gracy Babu in 8.90 acres comes to 2.97 acres only. According to the Ld. AR, if Rs.10,40,400/- out of 25,40,470/-was taken as consideration in lieu