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

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

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

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 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

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

M/S.MUKKOM URBAN CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment year (AY) 2019-2020 vide rectification order u/s.154 of the Act dated 17.11.2020. 2. The denial of deduction u/s.80P in the instant case has been on account of application of s.80AC of the Act, which, with effect from 01.04.2018, bars the claim of deduction, inter alia, under