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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance to be made under section 14A even

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance to be made under section 14A even

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance to be made under section 14A even

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance to be made under section 14A even

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance to be made under section 14A even

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

40,810/- on account of statutory disallowances, which was made\nin the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act\ndated 20.03.2015.\n6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who\ndismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the\nassessment made pursuant to notice u/s. 153A

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

disallowance. In so far as the judgment in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd.'s case (Supra) is concerned, that was rendered in the context of section 201(1), the object of which being compensatory in nature, cannot be of any assistance to the appellants to resist a proceeding under Section 40

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

disallowance. In so far as the judgment in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd.'s case (Supra) is concerned, that was rendered in the context of section 201(1), the object of which being compensatory in nature, cannot be of any assistance to the appellants to resist a proceeding under Section 40

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

disallowance. In so far as the judgment in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd.'s case (Supra) is concerned, that was rendered in the context of section 201(1), the object of which being compensatory in nature, cannot be of any assistance to the appellants to resist a proceeding under Section 40

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

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance of provisions of bad and doubtful debts to the extent of Rs. 57.57 crores is deleted. 3. The CIT(A) has erred on the following points while deleting the Book profit enhancement consequent to bad and doubtful debt the extent of Rs. 57.57 crores. 3.1. Vijaya Bank decision is applicable only for normal Income and not MAT Income [Minimum

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

40,810/- on account of statutory disallowances, which was made Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. in the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 20.03.2015. 6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the assessment made pursuant to notice

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

40,810/- on account of statutory disallowances, which was made Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. in the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 20.03.2015. 6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the assessment made pursuant to notice

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

40,810/- on account of statutory disallowances, which was made Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. in the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 20.03.2015. 6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the assessment made pursuant to notice

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

40,810/- on account of statutory disallowances, which was made Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. in the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 20.03.2015. 6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the assessment made pursuant to notice

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in concluding that disallowance of Rs. 39,11,162/- under section 40

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of guarantee commission paid to the State Government of Kerala, under the provisions of section 40(a)(iib) of the Act. This issue is no longer res integra as it stood covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT

THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of guarantee commission paid to the State Government of Kerala, under the provisions of section 40(a)(iib) of the Act. This issue is no longer res integra as it stood covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT