KERALA STATE BEVERAGES M&M) CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assesse as well as the Stay Petition

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

270/- and the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 14.12.2016 by determining total income at Rs. 6,01,84,16,899/-. 2.1 However, on subsequent examination of the records, the CIT noticed that an amount of Rs. 96076.20 lakh was debited in the Profit & Loss a/c towards Surcharge on Sales Tax and Turn over Tax. The surcharge was paid

M/S.KERALA STATE BEVERAGES(M&M) CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assesse as well as the Stay Petition

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

270/- and the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 14.12.2016 by determining total income at Rs. 6,01,84,16,899/-. 2.1 However, on subsequent examination of the records, the CIT noticed that an amount of Rs. 96076.20 lakh was debited in the Profit & Loss a/c towards Surcharge on Sales Tax and Turn over Tax. The surcharge was paid

M/S.COMBINED FOODS P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Combined Foods Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax, Kochi-1. 28/3030, Elamkulam, Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthara, Kochi-682 020. [Pan:Aaacc 9366N] Assessee-Appellant Revenue-Respondent

disallowance u/s 14A is not attracted. The Ld. AR relied on the following judgments: 1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd (394 ITR 449) (SC) 2. Principal CIT vs Sintex Industries Ltd 82 taxman.com 171 Guj - Department SLP against this decision was dismissed by Supreme Court in 93 taxman.com 24. 10.1 Hence, according to the Ld. AR, there was no error

M/S HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

disallowing the assessee’s appeal contesting it’s assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 27.12.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The appeal, filed on 09.01.2023, is delayed by 135 days. The condonation petition accompanying the appeal, which is supported by a sworn affidavit dated 29.12.2022 by Shri Simon John

DIADORA SHOES PVT LTD,CALICUT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

disallowing additional depreciation amounting to Rs.59,000/- in respect of new machinery acquired and put to use in the preceding year.” 7. The operative part of the order afore-referred is reproduced as under :- “3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 To begin with, in terms of the law of precedence, the decision

ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.GEOFIN COMTRADE LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

270 (SC). This provision, though again liable to be reflected by way of a reduction from the debtor account in the Balance Sheet, does not have the effect of reducing the debtor/s to that extent. This provision is not obliterated (written off) as at the year-end, representing a provision in the actual sense of the term, qua a doubtful

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE -1 (1), KOCHI vs. M/S GEOFIN COMTRADE LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

270 (SC). This provision, though again liable to be reflected by way of a reduction from the debtor account in the Balance Sheet, does not have the effect of reducing the debtor/s to that extent. This provision is not obliterated (written off) as at the year-end, representing a provision in the actual sense of the term, qua a doubtful

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR, TIRUR vs. M/S. SOUTH MALABAR GRAMINA BANK H.O., MALAPPURAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance of deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) towards provision for bad and doubtful advances of rural advances on the ground that no provision was made in the accounts. 9. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that provisions of section 36(1)(vii) are distinct and independent of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and a deduction for bad debt

M/S.SOUTH MALABAR GRAMINA BANK,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR, THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance of deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) towards provision for bad and doubtful advances of rural advances on the ground that no provision was made in the accounts. 9. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that provisions of section 36(1)(vii) are distinct and independent of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and a deduction for bad debt

M/S.SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK ( PRESENTLY- KERALA GRAMIN BANK),MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE_2(2), TIRUR, TIRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance of deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) towards provision for bad and doubtful advances of rural advances on the ground that no provision was made in the accounts. 9. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that provisions of section 36(1)(vii) are distinct and independent of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and a deduction for bad debt

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

section 43A of the Act, it is claimed that the amount of loss debited to Profit & Loss A/c. for the assessment year 2012-13 is reversed by crediting to Profit & Loss A/c. for the assessment year under consideration. This amount was claimed as deduction while computing taxable income. The AO, placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

disallowance as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Marg Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 580 and the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Pink City Developers [2017] 398 ITR 153. There is no embargo even to reject the books of account in the assessment made

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

disallowance as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Marg Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 580 and the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Pink City Developers [2017] 398 ITR 153. There is no embargo even to reject the books of account in the assessment made

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

disallowance as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Marg Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 580 and the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Pink City Developers [2017] 398 ITR 153. There is no embargo even to reject the books of account in the assessment made

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

disallowance as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Marg Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 580 and the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Pink City Developers [2017] 398 ITR 153. There is no embargo even to reject the books of account in the assessment made

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

disallowance as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Marg Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 580 and the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Pink City Developers [2017] 398 ITR 153. There is no embargo even to reject the books of account in the assessment made

THE POONJAR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, KOTTAYAM

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm &

section 56. (i) Own Fund Long Term Loan - 70,60,773/- (ii) Own Fund Short Term Loan - 1,31,80,270/- at 12.5% to 14% (iii)Gold Loans - 23,64,719/- at 13% (iv) Housing Loans - 8,94,833/- at 12% (v) Ordinary Loan - 42,86,229/- at 15.5% (vi) Trade Loan - 1,58,258/- at 13% (vii) Housing Repair

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

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm &

section 56. (i) Own Fund Long Term Loan - 70,60,773/- (ii) Own Fund Short Term Loan - 1,31,80,270/- at 12.5% to 14% (iii)Gold Loans - 23,64,719/- at 13% (iv) Housing Loans - 8,94,833/- at 12% (v) Ordinary Loan - 42,86,229/- at 15.5% (vi) Trade Loan - 1,58,258/- at 13% (vii) Housing Repair