KKR AGRO MILLS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11 Kkr Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Iii/678, Kkr Building, Okkal Kalady, Circle – 1(2), Ernakulam – 683 550. Kochi. Pan : Aabck 6542 K Assessee Respondent

disallowance, on account of any expenditure being excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value, shall be made in respect of a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA, if such transaction is at arm's length price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F. (b) The persons referred to in clause (a) are the following

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

THE KALAKKODU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahu(Assessment Year:2018-19

40a(3), 43B etc. Of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance. So our deduction u/s 80P will also

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

40A of the Act except in specified circumstances as referred to in Rule 6DD of the Income- tax Rules, 1962. However, there is no provision to disallow the capital expenditure incurred in cash. Further, section 35AD of the Act, inter-alia provides for investment linked deduction on the amount capital expenditure incurred, wholly or exclusively for the purposes of business

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

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

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

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 on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SRC Aviations (P) Ltd. 280 taxman.com 62 (mag.) (Del.) and also the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

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

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

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

9,12,000/- being the interest expenditure paid in cash invoking the provisions of 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD vs. THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

40a(ia) out of total disallowance of Rs. 14,77,64,857/- made in the assessment order. 2. The learned Commissioner of income tax(appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the disallowance of Rs.14,77,64,8571- (being 30% of Rs.49,25,49,525/-) was done for the reason that the assessee had made interest payments of Rs.57