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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1) of the Act would mean "actual expenditure incurred, held that no disallowance could be made under the said Section when no expenditure had 'actually' been incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning of the exempt income. Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1) of the Act would mean "actual expenditure incurred, held that no disallowance could be made under the said Section when no expenditure had 'actually' been incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning of the exempt income. Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1) of the Act would mean "actual expenditure incurred, held that no disallowance could be made under the said Section when no expenditure had 'actually' been incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning of the exempt income. Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

EDAMALAYAR SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY IX 103A,KOTHAMANGALAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 AND TPS , THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

66,425 and also not allowed the claim made u/s.80P of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, confirmed the disallowance u/s.80P of the Act by holding that that the appellant did not file the return of income placing reliance on the provisions of section

VENGOLA SERVICE CO OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vengola Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 13/621 Ab, Kunnathunadu Vengola P.O., Ernakulam 683556 [Pan: Aaaav1709N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Aluva Appellant By: Shri Lokanathan R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

66,620/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Aluva (hereafter “the AO”) at a total income of R. 37,36,420/- by denying the claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before

LAXMI MEGHAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KANHANGAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, KANNUR, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2012-13 M/S. Laxmi Meghan Educational Trust, Ito (Exemptions), Vs. Kmc W1/1504, Surgicare Centre & Hospital, Kannur – 670 006. Kasargode District, Kerala. Pan :Aaatl8244M Assessee Respondent

disallowance of Rs. 1,66,325/-u/s. 40(ia) against advertising payments, without looking into the law and facts of the case. TDS is applicable to payments to contractors, only when the payments are made in pursuance of a contract (Sec. 194C). In the present case, there is no such contract between the assessee Trust and advertising agencies. The advertisements

THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, TIRUR, TIRUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Malappuram District Co- Operative Bank Limited Head Office The Malappuram District Cooperative Bank Deputy Commissioner Malappuram Of Income-Tax Vs. Uphill Cpc Malappuram Bangalore Kerala 676 505 Pan No : Aaaat3207B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hameed Hussain, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By Nfac Delhi Dated 9.11.2021 For Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred Both In Law & On Facts In Adding The Pf Contribution Amounting To Rs. 59,24,494/- By Virtue 36(1)(Va) Of.The Income Tax Act. This Will Be Covered The Malappuram District Co-Operative Bank Limited, Malappuram

section 2(24(x). 7. This issue was raised in prominent newspapers at that time. The said newspaper cuttings have been attached herewith for your kind perusal and records. 8. The proposed disallowance U/s. 36(1)(va) is not applicable in this case. Because it was not a intentional action from the assessee side, but it was purely the technical

VAM GROUP HI-TECH ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Vam Group Hi-Tech Engineering Dcit, Circle - 1 Pvt. Ltd. Alappuzha X/685, Vam House, Vs. Pathirappally P.O., Alappuzha 688521 [Pan: Aaacv6606N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

66,33,000/- and an average value of the assets to the tune of Rs. 3,86,60,707/- only. However, the AO found that the assessee has not made disallowance of the expenses corresponding to the said dividend income. Accordingly, the AO invoked the provisions of section 14A r.w. rule 8D of Income Tax Rule and made disallowance

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

66 taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 also supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory amendment. The decisions relied on by the assessee

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

66 taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 also supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory amendment. The decisions relied on by the assessee

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

66 taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 also supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory amendment. The decisions relied on by the assessee

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

66 taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 also supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory amendment. The decisions relied on by the assessee

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

66 taxmann.com 4 (Karnataka) for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made to section 32(1)(ii) with effect from 01.10.2016 also supports the deduction claimed by the assessee. The amendment, no doubt, was introduced with effect from 01.10.2016, is a clarificatory amendment. The decisions relied on by the assessee

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

66 of bank report clearly indicates that creation of the provisions from this year has increased the loss. Moreover, as per section 43B(f) any sum payable by the assessee as to employer in lieu of any leave at credit of his employee is an allowable deduction but on actual payment before the return filing due date. In addition

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

66 of bank report clearly indicates that creation of the provisions from this year has increased the loss. Moreover, as per section 43B(f) any sum payable by the assessee as to employer in lieu of any leave at credit of his employee is an allowable deduction but on actual payment before the return filing due date. In addition

KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(3B) of the Act at a total income of Rs.396,29,16,115. While doing so, the Assessing Officer (AO) made following disallowances:- (i) Disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts. Rs.142,30,66,326 (ii) Disallowance u/s.36(1

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,COCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming