THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance claim qua its golf course under the head “plant and machinery”. Learned A.R. not only drew strong support from the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion but also produced this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order in Landbase India Ltd. vs. ACIT [2020] 185 ITD 40 (Delhi) (Tribu.). Mr. Gopi takes as to para 6 therein that

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance claim qua its golf course under the head “plant and machinery”. Learned A.R. not only drew strong support from the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion but also produced this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order in Landbase India Ltd. vs. ACIT [2020] 185 ITD 40 (Delhi) (Tribu.). Mr. Gopi takes as to para 6 therein that

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

44. There is no doubt that in Alom Extrusions, this court did consider the impact of deletion of second proviso to Section 43B,which mandated that unless the amount of employers’ contribution was deposited with the authorities, the deduction otherwise permissible in law, would not be available. This court was of the opinion that the omission was curative, and that

M/S HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

44 (SC);CIT vs. Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons P. Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 54 (SC)]. We decide accordingly. 7. The only other issue arising in the instant appeal, projected per Gds. 4-6, is qua disallowance under section

PHARMACON,KOCHI vs. DCIT,NON CORP, CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pharmacon .......... Appellant 35/2977, B 5, First Floor, Shopping Complex Pallinada, Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aalfp0115C] Vs. Dcit, Non Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2025

44,76,750/-. The AO disallowed the same for the failure of the appellant to substantiate that the commission payment was made wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Even before the CIT(A), no evidence was filed by the appellant to prove that the commission payment was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Even if, the contention that commission

FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

section for provision on standard debts...accordingly, we have added back Rs.1,53,44,773/ - being the Provision on standard debts... this add back is included in the amount of Rs.1,62,16,125 under any other disallowance

EDATHURUTHYKARAN PAVOO GEORGE,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACITCIRCLE-1, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Edathuruthykaran Pavoo George Vs Acit, Circle - 1(1) 40/2102, Market Road Kochi Ernakulam 682035 Pan – Abzpg4486E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Athira Anil, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.11.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual, Who Is Running A Proprietary Concern In The Name Of M/S. Novelty Textiles. The Proprietary Concern Is A Wholesale Dealer In Textile Products. For Ay 2009-10 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,83,44,875/-. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 26.12.2011 By Assessing The Total Income At Rs.2,89,52,150/-. Subsequently Notice Was Issued

44,875/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.12.2011 by assessing the total income at Rs.2,89,52,150/-. Subsequently notice was issued 2 Edathuruthykaran Pavoo George to the assessee under Section 148 of the Act on 21.03.2014. The reason for reopening of the assessment was that the assessee had claimed expenditure

THE CHITTATUKARA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO F 1642,CHITTATTUKARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Chittatukara Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 3/184, Chittatukara, Thrissur 680511 [Pan: Aabat6837E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Guruvayur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Ramdas, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Is That Appellant Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Appellant Society Filed The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 On 13.01.2021 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Against The Said

disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs. 51,44,838/- in respect of interest income earned from banks and treasury. 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 this Tribunal

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowing of Electricity Duty paid/ payable u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.43,87,44,000 on the ground that such Electricity Duty is an exclusive levy on the assessee. The facts of the case are as under. 2.2 The assessee submitted that the Ld.AO erred on facts of the case, since electricity duty

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowing of Electricity Duty paid/ payable u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.43,87,44,000 on the ground that such Electricity Duty is an exclusive levy on the assessee. The facts of the case are as under. 2.2 The assessee submitted that the Ld.AO erred on facts of the case, since electricity duty

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowing of Electricity Duty paid/ payable u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.43,87,44,000 on the ground that such Electricity Duty is an exclusive levy on the assessee. The facts of the case are as under. 2.2 The assessee submitted that the Ld.AO erred on facts of the case, since electricity duty

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowing of Electricity Duty paid/ payable u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.43,87,44,000 on the ground that such Electricity Duty is an exclusive levy on the assessee. The facts of the case are as under. 2.2 The assessee submitted that the Ld.AO erred on facts of the case, since electricity duty

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowing of Electricity Duty paid/ payable u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.43,87,44,000 on the ground that such Electricity Duty is an exclusive levy on the assessee. The facts of the case are as under. 2.2 The assessee submitted that the Ld.AO erred on facts of the case, since electricity duty

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

44 & 12/CIT(A),TVM/2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 both dated 12.01.2017, for the assessment years 2010-2011 and 2012-2013, in proceedings u/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), assessment year-wise, respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2 ITA.Nos.89, 90, 251 & 252/Coch./2017 2. The Revenue pleads the identical sole substantive

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

44 & 12/CIT(A),TVM/2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 both dated 12.01.2017, for the assessment years 2010-2011 and 2012-2013, in proceedings u/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), assessment year-wise, respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2 ITA.Nos.89, 90, 251 & 252/Coch./2017 2. The Revenue pleads the identical sole substantive

VILAVATTAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 337,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

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

disallowance of claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs. 4,08,44,737/-. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. We have heard the rival contentions

VILAVATTAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 337,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

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

disallowance of claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs. 4,08,44,737/-. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. We have heard the rival contentions

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