Search: disallowance

THE ITO, COCHIN vs. M/S.PESCAINDE, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections of the

ITA 227/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 253Section 263

253. It was submitted that the delay in filing the appeals was for bona fide reasons since the officer and staff were very busy in conducting surveys and also with time barring and year ending works and there is no willful negligence or lapses on the part of the Revenue in not filing the appeals before the Tribunal in time

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

THE ACIT,CIR-1(1),, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the

ITA 514/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 253(2)

253(2) from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Thiruvananthapuram on 26/08/2019. Thus, there was delay of 49 day. Accordingly, it was prayed that it is only just and reasonable that the delay was condoned, and the appeal was heard on merits. 2.2 We have gone through the condonation petition filed by the Department. As seen from the records, both

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

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

disallowance of charges paid to MPCMS towards professional charges made by the appellant for non deduction of tax at source on such payments invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had engaged services of an organization called MPCMS for rendering professional services in terms of agreement entered

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R

Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on the part

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

ITA 409/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R

Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on the part

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 190/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 253Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

section 253(2A) of the I.T. Act. 2. We shall first take the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.190/Coch/2015. The facts of the case are that the assessee carried on the business as jewelers and retail dealer of textile goods. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had entered into international transaction with associate enterprise. Hence, a reference

ACIT CORPORATE, COCHIN vs. M/S.JOY ALUKKAS (INDIA) LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 151/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 253Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

section 253(2A) of the I.T. Act. 2. We shall first take the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.190/Coch/2015. The facts of the case are that the assessee carried on the business as jewelers and retail dealer of textile goods. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had entered into international transaction with associate enterprise. Hence, a reference

M/S. PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 767/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Santosh P. Abraham, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowing the certificate issued by the statutory authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. E. The CIT(Appeal) went wrong in finding that appellant is not eligible for deduction for the interest income received u/s 80P(2)(d) . The issues covered in favour of the appellant of the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Principal

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 465/COCH/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

disallowance of charges paid to MPCMS towards professional charges made by the appellant for non deduction of tax at source on such payments invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had engaged services of an organization called MPCMS for rendering professional services in terms of agreement entered

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 464/COCH/2025[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

disallowance of charges paid to MPCMS towards professional charges made by the appellant for non deduction of tax at source on such payments invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had engaged services of an organization called MPCMS for rendering professional services in terms of agreement entered

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

disallowance of charges paid to MPCMS towards professional charges made by the appellant for non deduction of tax at source on such payments invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had engaged services of an organization called MPCMS for rendering professional services in terms of agreement entered

M/S.ABAD FISHERIES,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

ITA 120/COCH/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 1996-97

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

Section 10BSection 143Section 249Section 4Section 80H

disallowance. The main observations of the CIT(A) are contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 3) The CIT(A) had gone wrong in confirming income of Rs.42,266/- representing interest on income tax refund as income from other sources. I.T.A. No.120/Coch/2014 The CIT(A) ought to have held that interest on income tax refund can be assessed

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 108/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 249(3)

253 ITR 798) held as under: “In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 107/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 249(3)

253 ITR 798) held as under: “In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 109/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 249(3)

253 ITR 798) held as under: “In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 277/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2010-11

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

Section 14ASection 32

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 278/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2011-12

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

Section 14ASection 32

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that