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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance is called for where the assessee has made investments out of his own funds or the own funds available with the assessee are quite sufficient to make investments which have given rise to exempt income. In this regard following decisions can be referred to: i. CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (Punj

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance is called for where the assessee has made investments out of his own funds or the own funds available with the assessee are quite sufficient to make investments which have given rise to exempt income. In this regard following decisions can be referred to: i. CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (Punj

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

disallowance to be triggered. 19. In the considered view of the Court, this will be a truncated reading of Section 14A and Rule 8D particularly when Rule 8D(1) uses the expression ‘such previous year’. Further, it does not account for ITA Nos.30,31 & 32/Coch/2016 9 M/s.HLL Lifecare Limited. the concept of ‘real income’. It does not note that

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

disallowance to be triggered. 19. In the considered view of the Court, this will be a truncated reading of Section 14A and Rule 8D particularly when Rule 8D(1) uses the expression ‘such previous year’. Further, it does not account for ITA Nos.30,31 & 32/Coch/2016 9 M/s.HLL Lifecare Limited. the concept of ‘real income’. It does not note that

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

disallowance to be triggered. 19. In the considered view of the Court, this will be a truncated reading of Section 14A and Rule 8D particularly when Rule 8D(1) uses the expression ‘such previous year’. Further, it does not account for ITA Nos.30,31 & 32/Coch/2016 9 M/s.HLL Lifecare Limited. the concept of ‘real income’. It does not note that

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM vs. HLL LIFECARE LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the Special Bench decision in the case of Cheminvest

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowance to be triggered. 19. In the considered view of the Court, this will be a truncated reading of Section 14A and Rule 8D particularly when Rule 8D(1) uses the expression ‘such previous year’. Further, it does 6 ITA No.321/Coch/2024. HLL Lifecare Limited. not account for the concept of ‘real income’. It does not note that

ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

204,41,69,768/- under section 115JB of the Act. The reasons for reopening the assessment were communicated to the assessee vide letter dated 27.09.201. While computing the total income, the Assessing Officer reckoned Rs.155,00,21,113/- towards electricity duty collected by the assessee and payable I.T.A. Nos.52&53/Coch/2019 to Govt. which remained unpaid and added back

ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

204,41,69,768/- under section 115JB of the Act. The reasons for reopening the assessment were communicated to the assessee vide letter dated 27.09.201. While computing the total income, the Assessing Officer reckoned Rs.155,00,21,113/- towards electricity duty collected by the assessee and payable I.T.A. Nos.52&53/Coch/2019 to Govt. which remained unpaid and added back

ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI.P.C.JOSE, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 P.C. Jose .......... Appellant Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kochi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Circle - 2(1), Kochi Vs. P.C. Jose .......... Respondent Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 P.C. Jose

disallowing the loss arising from the business of card division of Rs. 7,50,927/- and proceeded to hold that the same is to be set off against other income. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed by the CIT(A). P.C. Jose 10. Being aggrieved with that part of the order of the CIT(A), which

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

204/- as against returned business loss of Rs. 324,09,47,701/-. 3. Regarding transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.56,48,130/- (Corporate IT services) a. That the Ld. TPO/AO/DRP erred in not appreciating that the Transfer Pricing documentation is maintained as per the provisions of the Indian Transfer Pricing Law, and in the absence of any defect, the economic analysis

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

section 801A, as the profits and gains gained by the assessee, which has direct and immediate nexus with the assessee's business, viz. airport. Therefore, what qualifies to be the business income of the assessee would be the income derived by the assessee from its core and essential activities of the airport and not from its incidental activities providing amenities

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

section 801A, as the profits and gains gained by the assessee, which has direct and immediate nexus with the assessee's business, viz. airport. Therefore, what qualifies to be the business income of the assessee would be the income derived by the assessee from its core and essential activities of the airport and not from its incidental activities providing amenities

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

section 801A, as the profits and gains gained by the assessee, which has direct and immediate nexus with the assessee's business, viz. airport. Therefore, what qualifies to be the business income of the assessee would be the income derived by the assessee from its core and essential activities of the airport and not from its incidental activities providing amenities

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 29.12.2010 for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. ITA Nos. 54& 84/Coch/2012 (AY: 2008-09) P.C. Jose v. Dy CIT / Dy. CIT v. P.C. Jose Ex-parte Order 2. The appeals were heard at length on 10.08.2023, covering all the issues, including the principal one, being the assessment

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. DR. RAMESH KUMAR ISWARA, COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the income Tax Act to make amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return. This was upheld by the Apex Court in Goetze India Ltd vs CIT (284 ITR 323). Therefore the entire exemption u/s. 54F as claimed