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

31] ■ The assessee vehemently argued that, once return is filed in response to notice under section 153A, as per provisions of section 153A(1)(a), such return should be considered as return filed under section 139, and further, it is treated as if, the Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. appellant has satisfied all the conditions prescribed under section

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

31] ■ The assessee vehemently argued that, once return is filed in response to notice under section 153A, as per provisions of section 153A(1)(a), such return should be considered as return filed under section 139, and further, it is treated as if, the Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. appellant has satisfied all the conditions prescribed under section

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

31] ■ The assessee vehemently argued that, once return is filed in response to notice under section 153A, as per provisions of section 153A(1)(a), such return should be considered as return filed under section 139, and further, it is treated as if, the Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. appellant has satisfied all the conditions prescribed under section

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

disallowing the claim of Rs 14,06,31,409/- u/s 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS 5.1 The Ld. AO has erred in considering reimbursement of Rs 12,68,42,880/- towards Salary and other R&D expenses within the scope of "Fee for technical Services under explanation 2 of section 9(1

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

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

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 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 12.09.2024 for Assessment Year

PLANT LIPIDS (P) LTD.,KADAYIRUPPU vs. DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Kadayiruppu Po Kolenchery Dcit, Vs. Kerala 682 311 Corporate Circle-2(1) Kochi Pan No : Aabcp6061C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Thomson Thomas, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ao, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Dated 19.6.2024 Vide Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1065876641(1) For The Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 2 Of 8

disallowed by new Explanation 2 to section 37(1), while computing Incomeunder the Head ‘Income form Business and Profession’. Further, clarification regarding impact of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in Explanatory Memorandum to The Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 is as under: "The existing provisions of section 37(1) of the Act provide that deduction

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36(1)(va) disallowance on the ground that the assessee ought to have credited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI within the specified due date under the corresponding statute than going by the “due” date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36(1)(va) disallowance on the ground that the assessee ought to have credited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI within the specified due date under the corresponding statute than going by the “due” date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36(1)(va) disallowance on the ground that the assessee ought to have credited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI within the specified due date under the corresponding statute than going by the “due” date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36(1)(va) disallowance on the ground that the assessee ought to have credited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI within the specified due date under the corresponding statute than going by the “due” date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com

MR. PREM MUKUNDAN ,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. (Judicial Member), Ms. Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member)

disallowing TDS credit in the name of assessee’s wife. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the CPC in the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) read as follows:- “In the instant case, the interest income accrued

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of 2 Assessment Year 2013-2014 INR.12,68,911/- The Assessee has now preferred the present appeal challenging Final Assessment Order. The Assessee has raised 17 Grounds of Appeal which are taken up in seriatim hereinafter. Ground No.1 3. Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee reads as under: “1. That

PANANCHERY SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), , THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pananchery Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Pattikad, Pananchery, Thrissur 680652 [Pan: Aabap5815A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Thrissur .......... Respondent

disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80(P) of the Act of Rs. 21,31,184/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS "JRG SECURITIES LTD"),KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com