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

263 disallowing a sum of Rs.7,49,20,296 u/s. 40(a)(ia). 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the amount of tax deducted at source is deposited before the due date for filing the return of income and therefore

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

1) (viia) (viid) of the Act. Since the amount of provision for bad and doubtful debt did not exceed the amount specified in the section and provision is an allowable expenditure deduction was claimed. Incidentally it is submitted that in respect of standard assets also a provision to the extent Rs.1.53 crores was made which was however disallowed while computing

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

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

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

M/S SREELEKSHMI CASHEW COMPANY,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysreelekshmi Cashew Company The Income Tax Officer Lekshmi Prabha, Kadappakkada Ward - 1 & Tps, Kollam Vs. Kollam 691008 [Pan:Aazfs1211Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri T.V. Hariharan, Ca Respondent By: Dr. Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

263 of the Act, that the Audit Report under section 44AB of the Act for the relevant year reported (at Item No. 20B of Form 3CD) a delayed deposit of the Employees’ contribution to the Employees’ Welfare Fund, i.e., with reference to time limit specified under section 36(1)(va), at Rs.15,98,004. Only a sum of Rs.3

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

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

LAKESHORE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daslakeshore Hospital & Rsearch Asst. Cit, Centre Ltd. Corporatecircle 1(1), Xvi Maradu, Nh 47 Bye Pass Vs. C.R. Building, Is Press Road Netoor P.O., Kochi 682040 Kochi 682018 [Pan:Aaacl4923A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, claimed in the sum of Rs.25,72,309, and which the assessee explains to have not written off in accounts for administrative reasons. Vide the impugned order the ld. CIT(A) has declined adjudication inasmuch as the assessing authority has there by only given

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

disallowing deduction claimed by the\nAssessee under 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act reliance was placed upon the\nprovisions contained in Section 80P(4) of the Act and the fact that\nthe Assessee was giving loans to its members/nominal members\nwhich were not related to agriculture. Therefore, the issue that\narises for consideration is whether in the aforesaid facts

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 made by the AO it has to be considered that the AO was satisfied with the claim of CSR expenses under Section 37 of the Act as an allowable expenditure. This submission cannot hold good for AY 2017-18 for the simple reason that the Act itself does not allow the claim of CSR expenditure to be an allowable

M/S.ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPN OF KERALA LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

disallowed by the AO against which the company is in appeal before the CIT(A) and therefore the subject matter of appeal is the same as the matter raised in proceedings u/s. 263 which is barred as per clause (c) of Explanation(1) of section

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD.,KOLLAM vs. THE DICT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasthe Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Sankaramangalam Circle - 1, Kollam Chavara, Kollam 691001 Vs. [Pan:Aaact8118R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub- section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and in a case where the interest is reduced, the Assessing Officer shall

BHARAT CHARITABLE HOSPITAL SOCIETY ,KOTTAYAM vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), KOCHI AT TVM, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is disposed of on the afore-said terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)

disallowance. The assessee appealed there- against before the first appellate authority under the Act on 18/01/2020. It was subsequently show caused u/s. 263 of the Act. The ld. Pr. CIT was of the view that the AO had gone wrong in making the addition for Rs. 29.91 lacs. Once section 13(1

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

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV.CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance made by the Assessing Authority. The Department carried the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, in turn, made reference to the contentions of the parties and the arguments advanced by the respective learned counsel and referred to the judgments, particularly that rendered by the Orissa High Court in CIT v. M.P.Bajaj

KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUTURE DEV CORPORATION(KINFRA),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance made by the Assessing Authority. The Department carried the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, in turn, made reference to the contentions of the parties and the arguments advanced by the respective learned counsel and referred to the judgments, particularly that rendered by the Orissa High Court in CIT v. M.P.Bajaj