FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3 holds that such a penalty imposed by the RBI in regular banking business activities does not attract the impugned disallowance u/s.37(1) Explanation. We accordingly accept the assessee’s instant eighth ground of appeal in very terms. 15. The assessee’s ninth substantive ground is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.228.22 crore u/s.115JB adjustment as well as sec.36

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3 holds that such a penalty imposed by the RBI in regular banking business activities does not attract the impugned disallowance u/s.37(1) Explanation. We accordingly accept the assessee’s instant eighth ground of appeal in very terms. 15. The assessee’s ninth substantive ground is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.228.22 crore u/s.115JB adjustment as well as sec.36

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3 holds that such a penalty imposed by the RBI in regular banking business activities does not attract the impugned disallowance u/s.37(1) Explanation. We accordingly accept the assessee’s instant eighth ground of appeal in very terms. 15. The assessee’s ninth substantive ground is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.228.22 crore u/s.115JB adjustment as well as sec.36

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3 holds that such a penalty imposed by the RBI in regular banking business activities does not attract the impugned disallowance u/s.37(1) Explanation. We accordingly accept the assessee’s instant eighth ground of appeal in very terms. 15. The assessee’s ninth substantive ground is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.228.22 crore u/s.115JB adjustment as well as sec.36

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

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

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

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

50,420/-. 3. The disallowances, inter alia, with which we are concerned include the disallowance of Rs. 16,40,710/- being the payment made to Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) invoking provisions of section

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

3)/144 of the Income-tax Act, the High\nCourt, after considering section 80P(4) of the Income-tax Act, various\nprovisions of the Kerala Act, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the bye-\nlaws of the Societies, etc., held that once a co-operative society is\nclassified by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Kerala Act\nas being

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 Rs.6,55,650 being cash payments made for purchase of capital assets alleging contravention of sec.40A(3) of the Act. In this context, it is to be mentioned that the assessee had made payments for capital assets purchased by cash. The assessee did not claim any deduction against the cost of capital assets purchased for Rs.6

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

Disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading “C.-Deductions in respect of certain income”, if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139; or (vi) Addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

50 years, under which, the annual rent was paid by the Lessee to the Lessor. The lease would have continued till 2009. However, during the relevant previous year i.e. in March, 1986, the Assessee surrendered tenancy rights prematurely and received a sum of 35 lacs. That sum was credited to the reserve and surplus account, which was disallowed

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

50 years, under which, the annual rent was paid by the Lessee to the Lessor. The lease would have continued till 2009. However, during the relevant previous year i.e. in March, 1986, the Assessee surrendered tenancy rights prematurely and received a sum of 35 lacs. That sum was credited to the reserve and surplus account, which was disallowed

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

50 years, under which, the annual rent was paid by the Lessee to the Lessor. The lease would have continued till 2009. However, during the relevant previous year i.e. in March, 1986, the Assessee surrendered tenancy rights prematurely and received a sum of 35 lacs. That sum was credited to the reserve and surplus account, which was disallowed

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

50 years, under which, the annual rent was paid by the Lessee to the Lessor. The lease would have continued till 2009. However, during the relevant previous year i.e. in March, 1986, the Assessee surrendered tenancy rights prematurely and received a sum of 35 lacs. That sum was credited to the reserve and surplus account, which was disallowed

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

50 years, under which, the annual rent was paid by the Lessee to the Lessor. The lease would have continued till 2009. However, during the relevant previous year i.e. in March, 1986, the Assessee surrendered tenancy rights prematurely and received a sum of 35 lacs. That sum was credited to the reserve and surplus account, which was disallowed

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of 2 Assessment Year 2013-2014 INR.12,68,911/- The Assessee has now preferred the present appeal challenging Final Assessment Order. The Assessee has raised 17 Grounds of Appeal which are taken up in seriatim hereinafter. Ground No.1 3. Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee reads as under: “1. That