FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

28. ITA No.310/Coch/2020 Appeal by the revenue for AY 2008-09. In AY 2008-09, the Assessee claimed deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act for a sum of Rs.18 Crores. In the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 9.12.2010, the AO disallowed the claim of the Assessee on the ground that the Assessee

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

28. ITA No.310/Coch/2020 Appeal by the revenue for AY 2008-09. In AY 2008-09, the Assessee claimed deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act for a sum of Rs.18 Crores. In the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 9.12.2010, the AO disallowed the claim of the Assessee on the ground that the Assessee

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

28. ITA No.310/Coch/2020 Appeal by the revenue for AY 2008-09. In AY 2008-09, the Assessee claimed deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act for a sum of Rs.18 Crores. In the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 9.12.2010, the AO disallowed the claim of the Assessee on the ground that the Assessee

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

28. ITA No.310/Coch/2020 Appeal by the revenue for AY 2008-09. In AY 2008-09, the Assessee claimed deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act for a sum of Rs.18 Crores. In the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 9.12.2010, the AO disallowed the claim of the Assessee on the ground that the Assessee

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 in the present Assessment Year. 22. In order to remedy this position and to remove hardships which were being caused to the assessees belonging to such second category, amendments have been made in the provisions of Section 40(a) (ia) by the Finance Act, 2010. 23. Section 40(a)(ia), as amended by Finance Act, 2010, with effect from

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

28 (va) any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date. Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause

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 32 of the Act. Balance additional depreciation cannot be allowed in subsequent AY, i.e. the year under consideration – Rs. 36,21,58,356/- iii. Disallowance of pre-operative expenditure details of which were extracted by the AO vide para 9 of the draft assessment order. These pre-operative expenditure was incurred for the purpose of setting

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed by the assessing authority under Section 14A of the Act. 3. The assessing authority was of the view that in as much as the appellant-Bank had not maintained separate accounts to show that the investment in shares and bonds had been made from surplus funds available with it and not using the borrowed funds, the expenses incurred

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed by the assessing authority under Section 14A of the Act. 3. The assessing authority was of the view that in as much as the appellant-Bank had not maintained separate accounts to show that the investment in shares and bonds had been made from surplus funds available with it and not using the borrowed funds, the expenses incurred

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed by the assessing authority under Section 14A of the Act. 3. The assessing authority was of the view that in as much as the appellant-Bank had not maintained separate accounts to show that the investment in shares and bonds had been made from surplus funds available with it and not using the borrowed funds, the expenses incurred

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed by the assessing authority under Section 14A of the Act. 3. The assessing authority was of the view that in as much as the appellant-Bank had not maintained separate accounts to show that the investment in shares and bonds had been made from surplus funds available with it and not using the borrowed funds, the expenses incurred

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed by the assessing authority under Section 14A of the Act. 3. The assessing authority was of the view that in as much as the appellant-Bank had not maintained separate accounts to show that the investment in shares and bonds had been made from surplus funds available with it and not using the borrowed funds, the expenses incurred

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed by the assessing authority under Section 14A of the Act. 3. The assessing authority was of the view that in as much as the appellant-Bank had not maintained separate accounts to show that the investment in shares and bonds had been made from surplus funds available with it and not using the borrowed funds, the expenses incurred

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

28-2-2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 Bengaluru disallowing the exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act by the assessee

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

28-2-2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 Bengaluru disallowing the exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act by the assessee

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

disallow deductions claimed under section 80P of the\nIncome-tax Act, notwithstanding that mere nomenclature or registration\ncertificates issued under the Kerala Act would show that the assessees\nare primary agricultural credit societies. These divergent decisions led to\na reference order dated 9-7-2018 to a Full Bench of the Kerala High\nCourt.\n5. The Full Bench

ANVAR ALI POOLAKKODAN,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, TIRUR, TIRUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Anvar Ali Poolakkodan, The Income Tax Poolakkodan House, Officer, Randathani (Po), Ward – 1 & Tps, Malappuram District – Tirur. 676 510. Vs. Pan: Bctpp4669J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K Kittunair, Advocate : Smt J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. Revenue By Ar Date Of Hearing : 11-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22.03.2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

28 of the Land Acquisition Act shall partake the character of revenue Page 5 of 8 receipt as per the extant provisions of section 56(2)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In this view of the matter, no infirmity is found in the action of the A.O. in treating the interest of Rs.31,91,464/- as revenue receipt

JULIUS RUBEN,KOCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance of such expenditure which is otherwise allowable as deduction in the computation of profits and gains from business or profession computed in accordance with the provisions of sections 28