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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance could be made and in this regard relied on decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sitex Industries Ltd., (2017) 82 taxmann.com 171 (Guj.) 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and are of the view that before 01.06.2001, section 251

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance could be made and in this regard relied on decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sitex Industries Ltd., (2017) 82 taxmann.com 171 (Guj.) 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and are of the view that before 01.06.2001, section 251

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance could be made and in this regard relied on decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sitex Industries Ltd., (2017) 82 taxmann.com 171 (Guj.) 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and are of the view that before 01.06.2001, section 251

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance could be made and in this regard relied on decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sitex Industries Ltd., (2017) 82 taxmann.com 171 (Guj.) 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and are of the view that before 01.06.2001, section 251

M/S.STATE BANK OF INDIA(SUCCESSOR TO STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

251 & 252/Coch./2017 business the method adopted by AO allocating all expenses regardless they are referable to eligible business or not is artificial, arbitrary and unreasonable. 2. Disallowance of provision made for sick leave: The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of provision made for sick leave by invoking the provisions of section

M/S.STATE BANK OF INDIA(SUCCESSOR TO STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

251 & 252/Coch./2017 business the method adopted by AO allocating all expenses regardless they are referable to eligible business or not is artificial, arbitrary and unreasonable. 2. Disallowance of provision made for sick leave: The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of provision made for sick leave by invoking the provisions of section

PLANT LIPIDS (P) LTD,KOLENCHERY vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. .......... Appellant Kadayiruppu P.O., Kolenchery Ernakulam 682311 [Pan: Aabcp6061C] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 2(1) .......... Respondent C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Kochi 682018

section 14A r.w. rule 8D of I.T. Rules the average value of investment was wrongly adopted at Rs. 26,70,05,428/- as against the correct average value of investment of Rs. 88,47,00,242/-. Accordingly, issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 24.06.2021. In response to the said notice the appellant filed return of income

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

251 & 252/Coch./2017 2. The Revenue pleads the identical sole substantive ground in both these appeals as under : 1. “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), erred in restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A to the extend, exempt income earned and erred in deleting the disallowance made in respect of provision made towards wage arrears. 2. The appeal was filed

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

251 & 252/Coch./2017 2. The Revenue pleads the identical sole substantive ground in both these appeals as under : 1. “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), erred in restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A to the extend, exempt income earned and erred in deleting the disallowance made in respect of provision made towards wage arrears. 2. The appeal was filed

THE TEEKOY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTTAYAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance your appellant filed an Appeal before the Honorable Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Delhi. 1.3. The Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi while passing the order u/s 250 allowed the appellants claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). 3 ITA.No.703/Coch./2023 1.4. But the Honorable

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. .......... Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aabck1582H] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle- 2(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

disallowance u/s. 35(2AB) of Rs. 1,00,80,910/- on the ground that the expenditure relating to research and development was not certified by DSIR in Form 3CL. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal

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

251 ITR 61 affirmed on this point. Held also, remanding the matters to the High Court, that the questions: (a) whether advertisement expenses incurred by the assessee to create a brand image with enduring benefit are allowable as revenue expenditure (b) whether the Tribunal had erred in granting deduction under Section 35D regarding short-term loan, in view

MANAPURAM FINANCE LTD,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Manappuram Finance Ltd., Acit, Circle-1(1) Iv/470A(Old), Thrissur W638A(New), Vs. Manappuram House, Valapad P.O. Thrissur-680567 Pan : Aabcm6882E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 26-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 511,95,39,820, after disallowing the claim of bad debts written off amounting to Rs. 23,71,40,000 and adding the interest income amounting to Rs. 77.39 crore not recognised by the assessee in its total income

COCHIN PORT AUTHORITY ( FORMERLY COCHIN PORT TRUST),KOCHI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

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

section 36(1)(va) of the Act; (b) Provision for bad and doubtful debts, at Rs.1,55,57,493 as against the correct amount of Rs.1,70,27,053, resulting in a short disallowance to the extent of the difference of Rs.14.70 lakhs; (c) Short deduction of tax at source on Rs.4,09,20,538. Cochin Port Authority

GRASS ASSOCIATES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ITO,CORP.WARD-13), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 08.12.2011 for assessment year 2009-10. 2. The brief facts leading to the instant appeal are that the Assessing Officer (AO) in assessment proceedings queried the assessee in respect of the expenditure claimed in the sum of Rs.37.43 lakh under the account head ‘repossession charges’. The assessee-company

M/S.THE MUNDAKKAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, KOTTAYAM

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasthe Mundakkayam Service Co- The Income Tax Officer Operative Bank Ltd. Ward – 2 Mundakkayam Vs. Kottayam Kottayam 686513 [Pan:Aaaat8803H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) r/ws. 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 29.9.2021 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), IT Department [CIT(A)], vide it’s Order dated 25.11.2022. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, registered as a primary agricultural credit society (PACS) under the Kerala