THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed by the assessing authority under Section 14A of the Act. 3. The assessing authority was of the view that in as much as the appellant-Bank had not maintained separate accounts to show that the investment in shares and bonds had been made from surplus funds available with it and not using the borrowed funds, the expenses incurred

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed by the assessing authority under Section 14A of the Act. 3. The assessing authority was of the view that in as much as the appellant-Bank had not maintained separate accounts to show that the investment in shares and bonds had been made from surplus funds available with it and not using the borrowed funds, the expenses incurred

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed by the assessing authority under Section 14A of the Act. 3. The assessing authority was of the view that in as much as the appellant-Bank had not maintained separate accounts to show that the investment in shares and bonds had been made from surplus funds available with it and not using the borrowed funds, the expenses incurred

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed by the assessing authority under Section 14A of the Act. 3. The assessing authority was of the view that in as much as the appellant-Bank had not maintained separate accounts to show that the investment in shares and bonds had been made from surplus funds available with it and not using the borrowed funds, the expenses incurred

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed by the assessing authority under Section 14A of the Act. 3. The assessing authority was of the view that in as much as the appellant-Bank had not maintained separate accounts to show that the investment in shares and bonds had been made from surplus funds available with it and not using the borrowed funds, the expenses incurred

THE MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO.LTD.,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Mathrubhumi Printing & Dcit, Circle-1(1) & Tps Publishing Company Ltd. Kozhikode Vs. K.P. Kesavamenon Road Calicut 673001 Pan – Aaact8521G Appellant Respondent

disallowed an amount of Rs.80,81,673/- toward delayed remittance of employees contribution towards EPF and ESI. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by stating that in the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 proposing amendment in both Section 36(va) as well

CSB BANK LTD ( FORMERLY THE CATHOLIC SRIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE PR CIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

438. 2. Regarding the issue that the provision is only towards the contingent liability, the assessee submitted that this provision was made as mandated by mandatory accounting standard AS15- Employee Benefits. 3. The assessee contended that the provision for leave salary is based on actuarial valuation which is a scientific method of computing estimated liability towards leave encashment that

CSB BANK LTD.,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

438. 2. Regarding the issue that the provision is only towards the contingent liability, the assessee submitted that this provision was made as mandated by mandatory accounting standard AS15- Employee Benefits. 3. The assessee contended that the provision for leave salary is based on actuarial valuation which is a scientific method of computing estimated liability towards leave encashment that

COMBINED FOODS (P) LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

438 ITR 1 (SC). In this case, undisputedly, own funds of the assessee are far exceeds the investment made, therefore, no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act is warranted. Thus, ground Nos.2, 3 and 4 are allowed. 6. Ground No.5 challenges the disallowance of depreciation on the cost of freezer as reduced by the deposits received from the distributors. The material

M/S.NAVIGANT BPM (INDIA) P. LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS REVENUE MED INDIA P. LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, ground No.4

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

disallowance u/s 10B of the I.T.Act and the arm’s length price was re- determined at Rs.4,62,38,575 instead of Rs.4,12,31,390 proposed in the draft assessment order. Subsequently final assessment order was passed on 16.12.2015, incorporating the direction of the DRP. IT(TP)A No.57/Coch/2016 3 SA No.62/Coch/2017. M/s.Navigant BPM (India) Pvt.Ltd. 4. The assessee

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD.,KOLLAM vs. THE DICT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasthe Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Sankaramangalam Circle - 1, Kollam Chavara, Kollam 691001 Vs. [Pan:Aaact8118R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections mentioned in that proviso. A “finding", therefore, could only be that which was necessary for the disposal of an appeal in respect of an assessment of a particular year. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner might hold, on the evidence, that the income shown by the assessee was not the income for the relevant year and thereby exclude that income from

PALAKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

438 in the case of CIT vs. Dhar Central Co-operative Bank and prayed to allow the appeal. 8. On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and also relied on the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal reported in (2013) 36 taxmann.com 91 (Cochin-Trib.) in the case of Kollam District

PALAKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

438 in the case of CIT vs. Dhar Central Co-operative Bank and prayed to allow the appeal. 8. On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and also relied on the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal reported in (2013) 36 taxmann.com 91 (Cochin-Trib.) in the case of Kollam District