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 40(a)(ia) & 40A(3) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, an appeal was filed before

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

disallowance of provision fund of Rs. 5,75,04,368/- by holding that the appellant had not made the claim in their return of income placing reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Wipro Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 212 DTR (SC) 369 (ii) CIT vs. Mr. P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Malayala Manorama

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

disallowance of provision fund of Rs. 5,75,04,368/- by holding that the appellant had not made the claim in their return of income placing reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Wipro Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 212 DTR (SC) 369 (ii) CIT vs. Mr. P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Malayala Manorama

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. The assessee filed their detailed reply and submitted that raw materials were purchased through their lorry drivers and the materials purchased is below Rs. 20,000/- and therefore no single transaction exceeds Rs. 20,000/-. The assessee also explained the facts and circumstances under which the materials were purchased from various Page

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

section 40A(3) are not applicable. 7. The Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in not accepting that the expense was incurred for purchase of fixed assets which is neither income nor expenditure, but the amount debited to the fixed asset accounts. These expenses have not been claimed as an expense through 5 ITA No.219/Coch/2025. Sri.Julius Ruben

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). Four (4) of the nine (9) major partners – the firm also admitting 7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). Four (4) of the nine (9) major partners – the firm also admitting 7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). Four (4) of the nine (9) major partners – the firm also admitting 7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). Four (4) of the nine (9) major partners – the firm also admitting 7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). Four (4) of the nine (9) major partners – the firm also admitting 7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). Four (4) of the nine (9) major partners – the firm also admitting 7 minor partners to the benefits of the partnership, were ladies, who were not residing either in the proximity or vicinity of the mining site, or at a place where the assessee had business transactions. They

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

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act applies only to those payments in respect of any expenditure debited to the Profit and Loss account and claimed as a deduction from income. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in affirming the disallowance of car depreciation and interest on car loan made by the Assessing Officer on account

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

section 40A(3). Clause (b) of rule 6DD provides that where the payment is made to the government no disallowance u/s. 40A(3) is to be made. In the present case, the payment is made to state government undertaking, i.e. KSEB, which is considered to be a ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India

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 Act. While making the disallowance the AO observed that genuineness of transaction is not sufficient. The AO also disallowed the claim of depreciation on Multiplex and shopping Mall by holding that construction is not complete. Similarly the AO also disallowed interest on of Rs. 7,88,919/- availed from KFC for construction of Multiplex

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

disallowed the electricity charges paid to Kerala Electricity Board in cash of Rs. 14,32,070/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the above addition, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). It was contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that the electricity charges paid to Government organization and, therefore, is covered by the exception

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

40A(ia) for disallowance of expenses where TDS was not deducted. The assessee denied the status of the society as a co-operative society and consequently, treating interest income of Rs.2,95,38,828/- as income from other sources, thereby denying deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). Further, the AO made addition of Rs.13

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 assessment(s) as upheld in the corresponding CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion. A perusal of the latter’s respective findings reveals that in any of the impugned orders under challenge before us, the CIT(A)/NFAC