THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 14A(3) which mandates such satisfaction to be recorded in a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act has thus not been correctly understood or applied by the AO. All of these overwhelm any possible argument

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 14A(3) which mandates such satisfaction to be recorded in a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act has thus not been correctly understood or applied by the AO. All of these overwhelm any possible argument

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under sub-section 3 of section 40A: 17 I.T.A. Nos. 301

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under sub-section 3 of section 40A: 17 I.T.A. Nos. 301

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. M/S.KERALA COMMUNICATORS CABLE LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed and

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

301/- claimed. Disallowance comes to Rs.306510789/- (Rs.360586301 – 54075512) Disallowance Rs.306510789/-. The depreciation table indicating WDV is attached separately.” 6 ITA No.271/Coch/2018 & CO 55/C/2018. M/s.Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) was of the view that the STB belongs to the assessee

SYEDALI EBRAHIM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD-1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

301/- under Section 68 of the Act; and (b) addition of INR.2,00,000/- by disallowing loss from self-occupied

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

301 days and 303 days for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). The reason given by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was that the Chartered Accountant of the assessee was suffering from backache which was supported by the medical certificate issued

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

301 days and 303 days for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). The reason given by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was that the Chartered Accountant of the assessee was suffering from backache which was supported by the medical certificate issued

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

301 days and 303 days for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). The reason given by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was that the Chartered Accountant of the assessee was suffering from backache which was supported by the medical certificate issued

THE ITO,WD-2(4), KOCHI vs. M/S.PUDUKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

301. PAN : AADAP3276H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR Respondent by : Sri.M.Ramdas, FCA Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2019 Date of Hearing : 20.06.2019 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : These appeals at the instance of the Revenue are directed against common order of the CIT(A) dated 21.01.2019. The relevant assessment years

THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT ( I&C1), KOCHI vs. M/S.PUDUKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

301. PAN : AADAP3276H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR Respondent by : Sri.M.Ramdas, FCA Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2019 Date of Hearing : 20.06.2019 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : These appeals at the instance of the Revenue are directed against common order of the CIT(A) dated 21.01.2019. The relevant assessment years

THE ITO,WD-2(4), KOCHI vs. M/S.PUDUKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

301. PAN : AADAP3276H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR Respondent by : Sri.M.Ramdas, FCA Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2019 Date of Hearing : 20.06.2019 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : These appeals at the instance of the Revenue are directed against common order of the CIT(A) dated 21.01.2019. The relevant assessment years

THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT ( I&C1), KOCHI vs. M/S.PUDUKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

301. PAN : AADAP3276H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR Respondent by : Sri.M.Ramdas, FCA Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2019 Date of Hearing : 20.06.2019 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : These appeals at the instance of the Revenue are directed against common order of the CIT(A) dated 21.01.2019. The relevant assessment years

THE ITO,WD-2(4), KOCHI vs. M/S.PUDUKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

301. PAN : AADAP3276H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR Respondent by : Sri.M.Ramdas, FCA Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2019 Date of Hearing : 20.06.2019 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : These appeals at the instance of the Revenue are directed against common order of the CIT(A) dated 21.01.2019. The relevant assessment years

PALLIPURAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 1308,PALLIPPURAM vs. ITO,WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA/, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) as well as u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us and contended that the claim of the assessee may kindly be allowed in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High

MANNAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, ERNAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowing deduction of sec.80P in respect of interest income earned from co-operative bank and commercial banks. However, the ld.CIT(A) took a view that the interest income earned from co-operative society is to be taxed under the head other sources. 5. Still aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before

TRICHUR DIST ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowed the claim of the assessee with respect of the deduction of 80P(2)(d) or 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 4. Now the assessee has come up in appeal before us and has raised three grounds of appeal. Ground No.1 is general in nature and ground Nos.2 and 3 and their sub-grounds, the assessee has contended

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

disallowance made by the Revenue authorities was not justifiable.” 5.8 The Ld. AR submitted that the assessing officer had made the addition in assessment year 2009-10 under ‘business head ' on the pretext that there was an 'apparent loss' of Rs. 89.76 lakhs on alleged policy of underselling in which event there was an apparent gain in the books