MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

293 ITR 226/163 Taxman 355, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the recipients of the amounts paid by the appellants, the firms of which they are partners, have already paid tax and that therefore, it is illegal to disallow the interest paid. First of all, Section

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

293 ITR 226/163 Taxman 355, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the recipients of the amounts paid by the appellants, the firms of which they are partners, have already paid tax and that therefore, it is illegal to disallow the interest paid. First of all, Section

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

293 ITR 226/163 Taxman 355, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the recipients of the amounts paid by the appellants, the firms of which they are partners, have already paid tax and that therefore, it is illegal to disallow the interest paid. First of all, Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOCHI vs. YOGAKSHEMA TRUST, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer .......... Appellant 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Old Railway Station Road, Cochi 682018 [Pan: Aaaty0284A] Vs. Yogakshema Trust .......... Respondent Keshava Smrithi, Chitra Lane, Aluva 683101

disallowance of exemption against accumulation of income under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, all the grounds are taken together. The appellant through an application in Form 10 submitted before the assessing authority with respect to the assessment year 2018-19, pursuant to a resolution passed by the trustees, has sought for accumulation

VILAVATTAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 337,KURICHIKKARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vilavattam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kurichikkara P.O., Thrissur 680028 [Pan: Aaaav9819K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Alan Priyadarshi Dev, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.04.2025 O R D E R Per: George George K., Vp This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)], Dated 23.08.2024 Passed U/S. 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act"). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Assessing Officer’S Action In Rejecting The Assessee’S Claim Of Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Act.

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. The AO rejected assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80P primarily relying on the Full Bench judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2019] 414 ITR 67 (Ker) (FB). The AO held that the assessee

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

293 ITR (AT) 267 (Mumbai) iii. PCIT v. Sanghi Infrastructure Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 370 (Gujarat iv. DCIT v. Ercisson Communications Ltd. ITA No. 106/2002 It is submitted that in assessee’s own case, the Delhi Tribunal for AY 2010-11 in the context of provisions of section 201 proceedings 31 Apollo Tyres Ltd. held that there was no obligation

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED,KOLLAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. .......... Appellant Sankaramangalam, Chavara, Kollam 691583 [Pan: Aaact8118R] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 1, Kollam Appellant By: Shri Rajeev R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025

disallowance of expenditure incurred on replacement of Rotary Calciner was restored to the file of the AO in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd. 293 ITR 201. The relevant part of the findings of Tribunal is as follows: “7. The assessee has taken one more ground

TIME ADS & PUBLICITY,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

disallowance that the Hon'ble Court regarded that the concession per the amended law, which came much later, would not be available to the assessee. The 3 ITA Nos.226/C/2012 & 27/C/2023 (AY 2008-2009) Time Ads & Publicity v. Asst. CIT same cannot, clearly, be regarded as the ratio decidendi of the said decision. As explained in CIT vs. Prakash Chand Lunia

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.TIME ADS & PUBLICITY, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

disallowance that the Hon'ble Court regarded that the concession per the amended law, which came much later, would not be available to the assessee. The 3 ITA Nos.226/C/2012 & 27/C/2023 (AY 2008-2009) Time Ads & Publicity v. Asst. CIT same cannot, clearly, be regarded as the ratio decidendi of the said decision. As explained in CIT vs. Prakash Chand Lunia

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.MFAR HOTELS & RESORTS LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail: A.Y. : 2011-12 C.O. No. 13/Coch/2015 : A.Y. : 2011-12 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 335/Coch/15)

section 143(3) of the Act, inter-alia, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that there has been extensive renovation and replacement of the existing hotel and, therefore, the claim of the assessee that no new advantage was gained is not correct. The AO further held that the total look and feel of the convention centre