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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 14A Cochin International Airport Ltd. read with Rule Rule 8D. The decisions of the Kolkata and Chennai Benches of the ITAT in the cases of ITO vs. Narain Prasad Dalmia: ITA No. 1180/K/2011 for the AY 2008-09 and ACIT v. Best & Crompton Engg Ltd. ITA No.1603/Mds/2012 for the AY 2009-10 too are applicable. fff) On the debate

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 14A Cochin International Airport Ltd. read with Rule Rule 8D. The decisions of the Kolkata and Chennai Benches of the ITAT in the cases of ITO vs. Narain Prasad Dalmia: ITA No. 1180/K/2011 for the AY 2008-09 and ACIT v. Best & Crompton Engg Ltd. ITA No.1603/Mds/2012 for the AY 2009-10 too are applicable. fff) On the debate

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. The only other issue that remains for consideration

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. The only other issue that remains for consideration

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. The only other issue that remains for consideration

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. The only other issue that remains for consideration

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. The only other issue that remains for consideration

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. The only other issue that remains for consideration

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

25 86 26 of the judgment in Rajedra Kumar's case. Without prejudice to the above contention that section 40(a)(ia) has no application on the facts of the appellant case, the appellant is advised to submit that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would apply only to the amounts which remain payable

VISWANATHAN KRISHNAKUMAR,ALUVA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

25,123/- 4. Disallowance of 33% of vehicle expenses and Depreciation on vehicle Rs. 7,32,411/- 5. Short Term Capital gains Rs.16,88,000/- The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal

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

THACHANATTUKARA FARMERS PRODUCERS COMPANY,PALAKKAD vs. ITO WARD 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

section 143(1)(a) as operating in different fields, i.e., without any overlap. The orders by the Tribunal relied upon by the Revenue are w.r.t. the strict interpretation of s. 80AC, which aspect is not disputed, and do not concern the applicability of s. 143(1)(a). The same would therefore not assist it in the matter. Kollad Service

KOLLAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO WARD 2 , KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

section 143(1)(a) as operating in different fields, i.e., without any overlap. The orders by the Tribunal relied upon by the Revenue are w.r.t. the strict interpretation of s. 80AC, which aspect is not disputed, and do not concern the applicability of s. 143(1)(a). The same would therefore not assist it in the matter. Kollad Service

M/S OLAVANNA SERVICE CO-OP BANK,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

section 143(1)(a) as operating in different fields, i.e., without any overlap. The orders by the Tribunal relied upon by the Revenue are w.r.t. the strict interpretation of s. 80AC, which aspect is not disputed, and do not concern the applicability of s. 143(1)(a). The same would therefore not assist it in the matter. Kollad Service

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

disallow the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act is illegal, totally unsustainable and perverse. 8. The CIT (Appeals) has thoroughly failed to consider the matter in the right perspective. The assessee is a Non-Resident, filed her return of Income for 3. the AY 2015-16 on 24-8-2016 admitting a total income of Rs.54

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

disallow the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act is illegal, totally unsustainable and perverse. 8. The CIT (Appeals) has thoroughly failed to consider the matter in the right perspective. The assessee is a Non-Resident, filed her return of Income for 3. the AY 2015-16 on 24-8-2016 admitting a total income of Rs.54

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

25,05,586/- ie. Rs. 6,26,396/-is disallowed u/s.40A(2)(a), treating it as excessive within the meaning of section

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

25,05,586/- ie. Rs. 6,26,396/-is disallowed u/s.40A(2)(a), treating it as excessive within the meaning of section