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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36(1)(va) disallowance on the ground that the assessee ought to have credited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI within the specified due date under the corresponding statute than going by the “due” date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36(1)(va) disallowance on the ground that the assessee ought to have credited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI within the specified due date under the corresponding statute than going by the “due” date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) (vii)of the Act, in consonance, with Vijaya Bank (supra) and the declaration made therein. The income tax appeals are partly allowed.” 8. We thus restore the assessee’s instant sec.36(1)(vii) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh verification in light of “Vijay Bank” and the relevant write off in the balance sheet

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) (vii)of the Act, in consonance, with Vijaya Bank (supra) and the declaration made therein. The income tax appeals are partly allowed.” 8. We thus restore the assessee’s instant sec.36(1)(vii) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh verification in light of “Vijay Bank” and the relevant write off in the balance sheet

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) (vii)of the Act, in consonance, with Vijaya Bank (supra) and the declaration made therein. The income tax appeals are partly allowed.” 8. We thus restore the assessee’s instant sec.36(1)(vii) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh verification in light of “Vijay Bank” and the relevant write off in the balance sheet

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) (vii)of the Act, in consonance, with Vijaya Bank (supra) and the declaration made therein. The income tax appeals are partly allowed.” 8. We thus restore the assessee’s instant sec.36(1)(vii) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh verification in light of “Vijay Bank” and the relevant write off in the balance sheet

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) (vii)of the Act, in consonance, with Vijaya Bank (supra) and the declaration made therein. The income tax appeals are partly allowed.” 8. We thus restore the assessee’s instant sec.36(1)(vii) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh verification in light of “Vijay Bank” and the relevant write off in the balance sheet

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) (vii)of the Act, in consonance, with Vijaya Bank (supra) and the declaration made therein. The income tax appeals are partly allowed.” 8. We thus restore the assessee’s instant sec.36(1)(vii) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh verification in light of “Vijay Bank” and the relevant write off in the balance sheet

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

70,039/- towards employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section

VISWANATHAN KRISHNAKUMAR,ALUVA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

70,000/- 2. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs. 1,11,276/- 3. Disallowance of business promotion expenses Rs.2,25,123/- 4. Disallowance of 33% of vehicle expenses and Depreciation on vehicle Rs. 7,32,411/- 5. Short Term Capital gains Rs.16,88,000/- The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed

SUD CHEMIE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ALUVA vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), ERNAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

70,450. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs.27,54,890 by applying 0.05% of incremental increase in reserves and surplus. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal

THE TALIPARAMBA GOVT EMPLOYEES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KANNUR vs. THE ITO , WARD 4, KANNUR

Appeal stands allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Gadora & Shri Amarjit Singhtaliparamba Govt. Employees The Income Tax Officer- 4 Co-Op. Society Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Taliparamba, Kannur 670141 Konnothumchal [Pan: Aalft8560F] Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim of Rs.52,70,841/- representing interest income from deposits made in Co-operative

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS "JRG SECURITIES LTD"),KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

THE VELIYANAD CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO 29,VELIYANAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 2(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Veliyanad Co-Operative Society Ltd. .......... Appellant 14A, Arakunnam Veliyanad B.O. Edakkattuavyal, Ernakulam 682303 [Pan: Aacat9073F] Vs. Ito, Corporate Ward (2(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Amaljith P.J., Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2025

70,900/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 14.02.2024 [passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 90,47,390/-. While doing so, the AO had denied deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on the ground that no return of income was filed within