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

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.KUNNEL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS P. LTD, KOCHI

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

disallowance of unpaid service tax u/s 43B of the IT Act. 3.1 The facts of the case for the assessment year 2012-13 are that an amount of Rs.6,83,90,211/- for the assessment year 2012-13 pertaining to service tax payable was included under statutory payables appearing against other outstanding liabilities forming part of the balance sheet

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

disallowance of Rs. 39,11,162/- under section 40(a)(ia) amounted to underreporting of income overlooking the fact that the appellant had deducted tax at source in all eligible cases and could not provide complete data due to technical issues faced by them on account of merger of 13 District Co-operative banks and short of time

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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2007-08 The South Indian Bank Ltd., .......... Appellant Head Office, Mission Quarters, T.B. Road, Thrissur. [Pan: Aabct 0022 F] Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle-1(1) & Tps, Thrissur.

211,21,24,830/- after making certain disallowances. On appeal before CIT(A)vide order dated 04/12/2013 granted partial relief. On further appeal to the ITAT in ITA No.181/Coch/2014 dt. 24/12/2014, the assessment order was modified at a total income of Rs. 144,91,03,583/-. While passing modification order vide order dated 06/07/2020, the AO had not granted interest

M/S.THE MEENACHIL CO-OP AGRICUTURAL & RURAL DEV. BANK LTD,PALA, KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-4, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

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

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

211 (Kar), Though the decision is with reference to section- 54 the issue considered is squarely applicable in the Assessee's case. 8. The CIT (Appeals) has not properly understood the argument notes, submitted at the time of hearing and also the explanations given there in, regarding the case laws, relied on by the Assessing Officer, as misplaced relating

ANNA ALUMINIUM COMPANY (P) LTD.,ERNAKULAM vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX CORP.CIRCLE1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anna Aluminium Company (P) Ltd. .......... Appellant Kp 111 847, Kizhakkambalam, Aluva 683562 [Pan: Aafca6562R] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Harikrishnanunny, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sundarasan S., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.08.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 30.10.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 7,50,26,610/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 23.12.2019

disallowed the claim for bad debts written off of Rs. 5,03,26,576/- by holding that the appellant company had created only provision but actually not written off the debts. The AO also made addition of Rs. 21,70,211/- u/s. 41(1) of the Act by holding that sundry creditors are outstanding for more than three years

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

211(Cochin), we quash the assessment for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 in ITA No.88 & 89/Cochin/2022. ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 5 of 19 A.Y. 2010-11: 8. The assessment in this case is reopened within 4 years though the original assessment has been completed

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

211(Cochin), we quash the assessment for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 in ITA No.88 & 89/Cochin/2022. ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 5 of 19 A.Y. 2010-11: 8. The assessment in this case is reopened within 4 years though the original assessment has been completed

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

211(Cochin), we quash the assessment for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 in ITA No.88 & 89/Cochin/2022. ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 5 of 19 A.Y. 2010-11: 8. The assessment in this case is reopened within 4 years though the original assessment has been completed

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

211(Cochin), we quash the assessment for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 in ITA No.88 & 89/Cochin/2022. ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 5 of 19 A.Y. 2010-11: 8. The assessment in this case is reopened within 4 years though the original assessment has been completed

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

211 to 213/Coch/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2011-12 Smt. Gracy Babu, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Padijareveettil, Income-tax, Central Circle, Puthenveedu, Kottayam. Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta-691 523. PAN:AHTPB 7949R] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 I.T.A. No.238/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner

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

211 to 213/Coch/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2011-12 Smt. GracyBabu, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Padijareveettil, Income-tax, Central Circle, Puthenveedu, Kottayam. Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta-691 523. PAN:AHTPB 7949R] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 I.T.A. No.238/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner

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

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

211 to 213/Coch/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2011-12 Smt. Gracy Babu, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Padijareveettil, Income-tax, Central Circle, Puthenveedu, Kottayam. Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta-691 523. PAN:AHTPB 7949R] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 I.T.A. No.238/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner

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

211 to 213/Coch/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2011-12 Smt. GracyBabu, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Padijareveettil, Income-tax, Central Circle, Puthenveedu, Kottayam. Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta-691 523. PAN:AHTPB 7949R] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 I.T.A. No.238/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner

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

211 to 213/Coch/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2011-12 Smt. GracyBabu, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Padijareveettil, Income-tax, Central Circle, Puthenveedu, Kottayam. Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta-691 523. PAN:AHTPB 7949R] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 I.T.A. No.238/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner

THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SMT.GRACY BABU, ADOOR P.O.

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

211 to 213/Coch/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2011-12 Smt. Gracy Babu, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Padijareveettil, Income-tax, Central Circle, Puthenveedu, Kottayam. Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta-691 523. PAN:AHTPB 7949R] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 I.T.A. No.238/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner