M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act but remitted before the due date of filing the return has to be allowed under Sect/on 43B of the Income Tax Act 1961. f) It is submitted that the decisions relied upon by the Pr. CIT in the order u/s 263 of the Act which is the basis for initiation

KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kerala Shipping & Inalnd Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Navigtation Corporation C.R. Building, I.S. Pres Road 38/924-A, Udaya Nagar Road Kochi 682018 Vs. Gandhi Nagar Kochi 682020 [Pan: Aabck4818L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 263 of the Act set aside the assessment order for fresh assessment with the following direction: “Hence, the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) dated 19/05/2021 is set aside to the Assessing Officer to consider the below matter: 1) For AY 2018-19 assessee had declared Rs.80,70,207/- as the interest Income (Income from other Source) in the return

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.71,07,988/- which is only in the nature of a provision. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that even the learned Assessing Officer’s corresponding assessment in para 2 nowhere raised such an issue of capital write off. We make it clear that we are dealing with an assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.71,07,988/- which is only in the nature of a provision. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that even the learned Assessing Officer’s corresponding assessment in para 2 nowhere raised such an issue of capital write off. We make it clear that we are dealing with an assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.71,07,988/- which is only in the nature of a provision. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that even the learned Assessing Officer’s corresponding assessment in para 2 nowhere raised such an issue of capital write off. We make it clear that we are dealing with an assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.71,07,988/- which is only in the nature of a provision. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that even the learned Assessing Officer’s corresponding assessment in para 2 nowhere raised such an issue of capital write off. We make it clear that we are dealing with an assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263

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

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia). The AO subsequently passed an order u/s. 143(3) read with section 263 disallowing a sum of Rs.7

MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

263 of the Act which reads as under:- “"2. In your case, for the AY 2017-18, assessment was completed on 11/10/2019 accepting the return of income filed at 'NIL' income. On perusal of the details /documents available on records, it is noticed that your activities falls within the residual clause of Section 2(15) of the Income

MALANADU FARMERS SOCIETY ,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

263 of the Act which reads as under:- “"2. In your case, for the AY 2017-18, assessment was completed on 11/10/2019 accepting the return of income filed at 'NIL' income. On perusal of the details /documents available on records, it is noticed that your activities falls within the residual clause of Section 2(15) of the Income

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PR CIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Asianet Satellite Vs. Pcit, Communications Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. 2A, 2Nd Floor, Carnival Technopark, Technopark, Kazhakuttom, Karyavattom, P. O., Thiruvananthapuram. Pan : Aaeca 5548 E Appellant Respondent

263 of the Act. 1.3. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned PCIT has erred in setting aside the assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act with a direction to redo the assessment after verifying the facts and giving opportunity to be heard to the Appellant, ignoring the fact that

SMT.THULASI SUBASH,THRIKKAKKARA vs. THE ITO, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am Smt. Thulasi Subash The Income Tax Officer 6/460A, Chellam Ward-1(5), Range 1 Kollamkudimugal Vs. Non Corporate Thrikkakara Kochi Kochi 682021 Pan – Ctaps0080B Appellant Respondent

disallowance of Rs.2,90,000/- in respect of supervision charges paid by the assessee. It was the submission that the said assessment was the subject matter of revision under Section 263

FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed the claim of provisions on standard assets and confined its provisions only to an extent of bad and doubtful debts on the Page 6 of 9 non-performing assets. Hence there is no error in the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. 6. Section 263

M/S.ARMAJARO TRADING INDIA P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

section 263 be quashed or in the alternative, share application money be considered as capital receipt towards equity shares. The appellant prays accordingly.” 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a company engaged in the business of trading in cashew. For the assessment year 2016-2017, the return of income was filed

M/S.KAIRALI JEWELLERS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TVM, TVM

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am M/S. Kairali Jewellers The Income Tax Officer Kairali Auditorium Ward 1(4) Vs. Maithanam, Varkala Thiruvananthapuram Trivandrum 695141 Pan – Aaefk6327N Appellant Respondent

263 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2017 wherein also the AO has extracted the directions of the learned Pr. CIT as follows: - (i) Adequacy of profits as per trading results. (ii) Examining identify, genuineness and creditworthiness of purported creditors in accordance with section 68 AND (iii) Examining source of addition to capital account after affording reasonable opportunity

CSB BANK LTD.,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

263 was issued to the assessee on 12.02.2021. In response to the same the assessee made a detailed submission stating their points of contention in each issue. The points of contention in each issue are summarised as under: 2.1 Allowability of provision for sick leave 1. The assessee states that the section 43B(f) provides that any sum payable

CSB BANK LTD ( FORMERLY THE CATHOLIC SRIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE PR CIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

263 was issued to the assessee on 12.02.2021. In response to the same the assessee made a detailed submission stating their points of contention in each issue. The points of contention in each issue are summarised as under: 2.1 Allowability of provision for sick leave 1. The assessee states that the section 43B(f) provides that any sum payable

GEORGE KOCHUPARAMBIL, PROP. UNITED GRANITES & METALS,THODUPUZHA vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Juduicial Member & Ms. Padmavathy Sshri George Kochuparambil Kochuparambil House Dcit/Acit, Central Vazhithala P.O. Vs. Circle Thodupuzha Kochi Idukki 685583 Pan – Afjpk9650E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri M. Jarasekhar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2023

disallowance under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.41,41,053/- in the original assessment proceedings. He submitted that initiation of proceedings under Section 263

DHNALAXMI BANK LIMITED,TRICHUR vs. THE PR CIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

263 of the Act, as the assessment made under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the year is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 3. The learned PCIT erred in making the disallowance

KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowances, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A). While the matter stood thus subsequently on examination of the assessment records, the learned PCIT formed an opinion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, as the AO had failed to examine the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of sec.40