M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Disallowed 87/2016 2007-08 3,10,14,290 3,50,43,680 1,78,39,070 235/2013 2008-09 2,72,58,163 3,80,46,570 1,22,63,460 271/2013 2009-10 4,11,26,710 3,90,28,180 1,83,88,380 265/2015 2010-11 4,41,01,970 4,20,02,029 1

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS,, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Disallowed 87/2016 2007-08 3,10,14,290 3,50,43,680 1,78,39,070 235/2013 2008-09 2,72,58,163 3,80,46,570 1,22,63,460 271/2013 2009-10 4,11,26,710 3,90,28,180 1,83,88,380 265/2015 2010-11 4,41,01,970 4,20,02,029 1

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Disallowed 87/2016 2007-08 3,10,14,290 3,50,43,680 1,78,39,070 235/2013 2008-09 2,72,58,163 3,80,46,570 1,22,63,460 271/2013 2009-10 4,11,26,710 3,90,28,180 1,83,88,380 265/2015 2010-11 4,41,01,970 4,20,02,029 1

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Disallowed 87/2016 2007-08 3,10,14,290 3,50,43,680 1,78,39,070 235/2013 2008-09 2,72,58,163 3,80,46,570 1,22,63,460 271/2013 2009-10 4,11,26,710 3,90,28,180 1,83,88,380 265/2015 2010-11 4,41,01,970 4,20,02,029 1

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Disallowed 87/2016 2007-08 3,10,14,290 3,50,43,680 1,78,39,070 235/2013 2008-09 2,72,58,163 3,80,46,570 1,22,63,460 271/2013 2009-10 4,11,26,710 3,90,28,180 1,83,88,380 265/2015 2010-11 4,41,01,970 4,20,02,029 1

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Disallowed 87/2016 2007-08 3,10,14,290 3,50,43,680 1,78,39,070 235/2013 2008-09 2,72,58,163 3,80,46,570 1,22,63,460 271/2013 2009-10 4,11,26,710 3,90,28,180 1,83,88,380 265/2015 2010-11 4,41,01,970 4,20,02,029 1

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Disallowed 87/2016 2007-08 3,10,14,290 3,50,43,680 1,78,39,070 235/2013 2008-09 2,72,58,163 3,80,46,570 1,22,63,460 271/2013 2009-10 4,11,26,710 3,90,28,180 1,83,88,380 265/2015 2010-11 4,41,01,970 4,20,02,029 1

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Disallowed 87/2016 2007-08 3,10,14,290 3,50,43,680 1,78,39,070 235/2013 2008-09 2,72,58,163 3,80,46,570 1,22,63,460 271/2013 2009-10 4,11,26,710 3,90,28,180 1,83,88,380 265/2015 2010-11 4,41,01,970 4,20,02,029 1

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

72(1), 73(2) , 74(3) and 74A(3) of the 1961 Act. Thus, Section 80 also refers to the time line provided u/s 139(3), which in turn refers to prescribed time u/s 139(1) for filing of return of income and Section 139(3) also stipulates that all the provisions of the 1961 Act shall apply

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

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 195(1) of the Act holding that the amounts paid to lead managers and managers were chargeable to tax in India as fees for technical services within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Appellate Commissioner also upheld the order of the assessing officer. On further appeal before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 195(1) of the Act holding that the amounts paid to lead managers and managers were chargeable to tax in India as fees for technical services within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Appellate Commissioner also upheld the order of the assessing officer. On further appeal before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal

M/S.COMBINED FOODS P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Combined Foods Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax, Kochi-1. 28/3030, Elamkulam, Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthara, Kochi-682 020. [Pan:Aaacc 9366N] Assessee-Appellant Revenue-Respondent

72,034 /- was not examined with reference to statutory provisions of actual cost as per explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of IT Act. In reply to show cause notice the assessee contends that 1TAT, Cochin Bench, Cochin in the assessee's own appeal had deleted the addition towards the lapsed I.T.A. No.155 /Coch/2017 liability on freezer deposits. The applicability