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(1

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(1

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(1

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(1

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

1)(iii) prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2003, in relation to money borrowed for purchase of machinery even though the assessee had not used the machinery in the year of borrowing. Decision of the Gujarat High Court in Deputy CIT v Core Health Care Ltd. [2001]251 ITR 61 affirmed on this point. Held also, remanding

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

Disallowance under section 36(1)(viii): 1.1. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of AO abating eligible deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) ignoring the method of accounting for eligible business consistently followed by appellant. 1.2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that whereas the method adopted by appellant involved allocating only those expenses which is referable to income

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

Disallowance under section 36(1)(viii): 1.1. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of AO abating eligible deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) ignoring the method of accounting for eligible business consistently followed by appellant. 1.2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that whereas the method adopted by appellant involved allocating only those expenses which is referable to income

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

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

1), Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") after making disallowance of Rs. 30,03,953/- u/s. 14A of the Act. Subsequently the AO formed and opinion that income got escaped assessment to tax, for the reason that for the purpose of computing the disallowance under section 14A r.w. rule 8D of I.T. Rules the average value of investment was wrongly adopted

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

1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Vide order dated 12/12/2017 passed under 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

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 on the following grounds: 3. Restriction of 14A disallowance: Disallowance u/s. 14A was calculated as per Rule 8D. There

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 on the following grounds: 3. Restriction of 14A disallowance: Disallowance u/s. 14A was calculated as per Rule 8D. There

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

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

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

1), dated 10.08.2023, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : I. Denial of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest received from other co-operative

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