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

disallow the expenditure incurred on public deposits. At this point, it would be relevant to examine the provisions of Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act and the same is as under:- "General. 37 (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal

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

disallow the expenditure incurred on public deposits. At this point, it I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 would be relevant to examine the provisions of Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act and the same is as under:- "General. 37 (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being

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

disallow the expenditure incurred on public deposits. At this point, it I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 would be relevant to examine the provisions of Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act and the same is as under:- "General. 37 (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being

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

disallow the expenditure incurred on public deposits. At this point, it I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 would be relevant to examine the provisions of Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act and the same is as under:- "General. 37 (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being

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

disallow the expenditure incurred on public deposits. At this point, it I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 would be relevant to examine the provisions of Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act and the same is as under:- "General. 37 (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being

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

disallow the expenditure incurred on public deposits. At this point, it I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 would be relevant to examine the provisions of Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act and the same is as under:- "General. 37 (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being

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

disallow the expenditure incurred on public deposits. At this point, it I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 would be relevant to examine the provisions of Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act and the same is as under:- "General. 37 (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being

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

disallow the expenditure incurred on public deposits. At this point, it I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 would be relevant to examine the provisions of Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act and the same is as under:- "General. 37 (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

disallowance. The assessee must succeed for this reason as well.” 9. With our utmost respect to the findings of the co-ordinate bench [supra], we are of the considered view that the co-ordinate bench has ignored the binding ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd [supra]. It would be pertinent

MR.THOMAS DANIEL,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.68/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

23. Despite this narrow interpretation of section 40(a)(ia),the question still survives if the Tribunal in case of M/s Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs. ACIT (supra) was accurate in its opinion. In this context, we would like to examine two aspects. Firstly, what would be the correct interpretation of the said provision. Secondly, whether our such understanding

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction in assessee’s favour and against the Revenue, as under:- “23

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction in assessee’s favour and against the Revenue, as under:- “23

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction in assessee’s favour and against the Revenue, as under:- “23

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction in assessee’s favour and against the Revenue, as under:- “23

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction in assessee’s favour and against the Revenue, as under:- “23

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction in assessee’s favour and against the Revenue, as under:- “23

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

23(Bom), the assesse can always present its claim before the appellate authorities for the first time even if the said claim is not made in the return of income filed with the Revenue, wherein Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under: “10. A long line of authorities establish clearly that an assessee is entitled to raise additional grounds

M/S PERINGATTU HEALTH FOUNDATION PRIVATE,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(3), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 14.12.2016 for assessment year (AY) 2014-2015. 2. The appeal, filed on 09.01.2023, is delayed by 148 days. It is accompanied by a sworn affidavit of even date by Dr. Thampi Mathew, Executive Director and Principal Officer, also signing the appeal memo before the first appellate authority