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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank is that, in fact, the assessee had written off the said amounts and hence there could be a deduction claimed under Section 36(1

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank is that, in fact, the assessee had written off the said amounts and hence there could be a deduction claimed under Section 36(1

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank is that, in fact, the assessee had written off the said amounts and hence there could be a deduction claimed under Section 36(1

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank is that, in fact, the assessee had written off the said amounts and hence there could be a deduction claimed under Section 36(1

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank is that, in fact, the assessee had written off the said amounts and hence there could be a deduction claimed under Section 36(1

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank is that, in fact, the assessee had written off the said amounts and hence there could be a deduction claimed under Section 36(1

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

1 & 2\nare general in nature. Grounds of appeal Nos. 3 & 4 challenges the\ndenial of claim for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act for the reasons\nstated by us in the appeal of AY 2012-13 in appeal ITA No.\n267/Coch/2021 wherein we held that the CIT(A) was justified in\ndenying the claim u/s. 80PIA

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

1,17,70,000/- being 10% of the labour charges on adhoc basis. The contention of the appellant that in the absence of incriminating material casting doubts on the genuineness of the expenditure incurred on labour charges, no addition can be made u/s. 153A of the Act cannot be accepted for the reason that it is an unabated assessment

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

1,17,70,000/- being 10% of the labour charges on adhoc basis. The contention of the appellant that in the absence of incriminating material casting doubts on the genuineness of the expenditure incurred on labour charges, no addition can be made u/s. 153A of the Act cannot be accepted for the reason that it is an unabated assessment

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

1,17,70,000/- being 10% of the labour charges on adhoc basis. The contention of the appellant that in the absence of incriminating material casting doubts on the genuineness of the expenditure incurred on labour charges, no addition can be made u/s. 153A of the Act cannot be accepted for the reason that it is an unabated assessment

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

1,17,70,000/- being 10% of the labour charges on adhoc basis. The contention of the appellant that in the absence of incriminating material casting doubts on the genuineness of the expenditure incurred on labour charges, no addition can be made u/s. 153A of the Act cannot be accepted for the reason that it is an unabated assessment

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

THEDCIT, 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

ERNAKULAM REGIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNIONS LTD.,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 32(1) (iia), since the additional depreciation is a one-time benefit and is to be claimed only in the year in which the machinery is put to use. The assessee submitted that though additional depreciation is a one-time benefit, the relevant provisions have to be construed reasonably liberally and purposively to make the provision meaningful by relying

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance and no new facts needs to be investigated for adjudicating the same. Another issues alleged by the assessee is a legal issue that does not require investigation of any facts. 3.4 Considering the submissions and respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance and no new facts needs to be investigated for adjudicating the same. Another issues alleged by the assessee is a legal issue that does not require investigation of any facts. 3.4 Considering the submissions and respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported

KITEX GARMENTS LIMITED,KIZHAKKAMBALAM vs. DCIT 1(1), CORPORATE CIRCLE, KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

72,99,38,900/- and the 2 Kitex Garments Ltd. same was revised on 30.11.2015 at a total income Rs. 71,57,09,870/- The disparity between returned and assessed income is on account of reducing the capital subsidy of Rs. 5,93,99,739/- from the value of block of assets for the purpose of claiming depreciation and claiming