THOMSON GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOMBODINJAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Thomson Granites Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant X/616, Kambodinjamakkal Thazhekkad P.O., Thrissur 680697 [Pan: Aacct0876E] Vs. Acit, Circle - 1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Municipal Office Road Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680001 Appellant By: Shri Aneesh Vishwanathan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2025

disallowed the expenditure incurred in cash on fuel or Rs. 4,44,47,632/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and remuneration to the Directors of Rs. 72,00,000/- invoking provisions of section

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

section (43B), the provisions of gratuity payable to approved gratuity fund is allowable as deduction u/s. 40A(7) of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Common Welfare Trust (P.) Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 290 (Ker.). 8. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submits that in absence of claim

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

section (43B), the provisions of gratuity payable to approved gratuity fund is allowable as deduction u/s. 40A(7) of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Common Welfare Trust (P.) Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 290 (Ker.). 8. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submits that in absence of claim

CANON GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 40A(3) of the Act for disallowing the deduction it should be expenditure made to a person in a day and not the total

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 depreciation under section 32 and capital expenditure under section 35AD on cash payment 7 ITA No.219/Coch/2025. Sri.Julius Ruben. Under the existing provisions of the Act, revenue expenditure incurred in cash exceeding certain monetary threshold is not allowable as per sub-section (3) of section 40A

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A

M/S SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A

MINA WOOD INDUSTRIES,MATTANNUR vs. ITO , WARD-3, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the appellant stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mina Wood Industries .......... Appellant Iii/656 B, Kallur, Matannur Kannur 670702 [Pan: Aagmf2716D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward -3, Kannur Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.02.2025

disallowance of Rs. 13,06,452/- invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act being the amount paid

VICT PLY INDUSTRIES,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD 4, KNNUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Victply Industries .......... Appellant Ap Vii/585B, Industrial Development Park Andoor, Parassinikkadavu, Kannur, Kerala [Pan: Aagfv 5189 D] Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Kannur .......... Respondent

section 40A(3) and it can be treated as a government and no disallowance attracted. Reliance in this regard can be placed

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

disallowance u/s. 40A(3) made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the capital expenditure incurred by the appellant. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that section

PANICHIKANDY MOHANDASAN,KASARGOD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). disallowance of depreciation of plant and machinery of Rs. 10,64,649/-, disallowance

JOY THOMAS,KURAVILANGADU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, KOTTAYAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Joy Thomas .......... Appellant Chitra Kozha Kuravilangadu, Kottayam 686633 [Pan: Acxpt6745J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer - Ward -1 .......... Respondent Shastri Road, Kottayam 686001 Appellant By: Shri Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2025

section 40A(3) of the Act. 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, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. The learned A.R. submitted that the lower authorities have failed to consider the cash withdrawals

INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

Section 40A(ia) for disallowance of expenses where TDS was not deducted. The assessee denied the status of the society

M/S. GLOBAL WAVE TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD.,COCHIN vs. THE INCOMETHE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 40A(ia) and similar other disallowance(s); involving varying sums, in all these assessment years during the course of regular