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

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 as if it is a return

M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS CO. P. LTD,MUNNAR vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

section 10(30) of the I.T. Act is not allowed. ii) The disallowance under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Act may be restricted to Rs.2,27,440/- instead of Rs.22,74

M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS CO. P. LTD,MUNNAR vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

section 10(30) of the I.T. Act is not allowed. ii) The disallowance under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Act may be restricted to Rs.2,27,440/- instead of Rs.22,74

M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS CO. P. LTD,MUNNAR vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

section 10(30) of the I.T. Act is not allowed. ii) The disallowance under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Act may be restricted to Rs.2,27,440/- instead of Rs.22,74

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S. KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS CO., P. LTD, IDUKKI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

section 10(30) of the I.T. Act is not allowed. ii) The disallowance under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Act may be restricted to Rs.2,27,440/- instead of Rs.22,74

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S. KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS CO., P. LTD, IDUKKI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

section 10(30) of the I.T. Act is not allowed. ii) The disallowance under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Act may be restricted to Rs.2,27,440/- instead of Rs.22,74

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

disallowance in the present Assessment Year. 22. In order to remedy this position and to remove hardships which were being caused to the assessees belonging to such second category, amendments have been made in the provisions of Section 40(a) (ia) by the Finance Act, 2010. 23. Section 40(a)(ia), as amended by Finance Act, 2010, with effect from

MOHAMMED TARIQ THAIMADATHIL,KOCHI vs. THE ITO , NON CORP WARD 1(5), KOCHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Mohammed Tariq Thaimadathil, Vs. Ito, Tariq Manzil, Elmkunnapuzha Road, Non Corporate Ward – 1(5), Kaloor, Kochi. Cochin – 682 107. Pan : Abrpt 7993 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior Ar. Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav:

section 14A of the Act and disallowed an amount of Rs.2,74,818/-. Besides this, the AO has also disallowed

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

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

74,43,077/- is seen as `not paid’ to the Government account before the due date for filing the return of income. This amount collected but not paid within the due date prescribed, should have been brought to tax, in terms of section 43B r.w.s. 145A of the Income-tax Act. Disallowance

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. JTCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance of deduction u/s. 10B was upheld. Regarding alternate claim of deduction u/s. 10A, the DRP confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer. 13.3 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the DRP and the A.O. was bound to examine and grant the alternative claim u/s. 10A of the Act to the assessee

THE JT CIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance of deduction u/s. 10B was upheld. Regarding alternate claim of deduction u/s. 10A, the DRP confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer. 13.3 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the DRP and the A.O. was bound to examine and grant the alternative claim u/s. 10A of the Act to the assessee

LAKSHMI HOSPITAL,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Assessment Year: 2019-20

74,600/- was made resulting in taxable income of Rs.83,09,600/- and Assessing Officer levied tax accordingly. During the course of processing of the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, the CPC disallowed

AY BROADCAST FOUNDATION,THIRUVALLA vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.263/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ay Broadcast Foundation, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Gfa Buildings, Income-Tax, Circle-1, Thiruvalla. Manjadi, Thiruvalla. [Pan:Aafca 3216]

disallowing deduction u/s 11 as claimed by the Company in the income tax return and not treating the company as a business entity. 7. For these and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) may be quashed. 3. The facts of the case

KURIAKOSE ELIAS CARMEL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,ALAPPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (E), ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

74,714 constituted as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Act and disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee

THOMAS CHACKO,KOCHI vs. THE DCIT KOCHI CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 80JJAA deduction(s) involving varying sums disallowed by the Assessing Officer, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion, as under: - “4.3 In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant furnished his return of income on 30.12.2020 against the extended due date of 15.02.2021 with gross total income at Rs. 2,31,31,119/- and claimed

SRI.THOMAS CHACKO PROPRIETOR OF GROUP MUKKADAN,KCOHI vs. ACIT WARD-2, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 80JJAA deduction(s) involving varying sums disallowed by the Assessing Officer, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion, as under: - “4.3 In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant furnished his return of income on 30.12.2020 against the extended due date of 15.02.2021 with gross total income at Rs. 2,31,31,119/- and claimed

SRI.THOMAS CHACKO PROPRIETOR OF GROUP MUKKADAN,KCOHI vs. ACIT , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 80JJAA deduction(s) involving varying sums disallowed by the Assessing Officer, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion, as under: - “4.3 In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant furnished his return of income on 30.12.2020 against the extended due date of 15.02.2021 with gross total income at Rs. 2,31,31,119/- and claimed

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

sections 30 to 53[38], the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession",— (a) in the case of any assessee— (b) in the case of any firm assessable as such,— (i) any payment of salary, bonus, commission or remuneration, by whatever name called (hereinafter referred

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

sections 30 to 53[38], the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession",— (a) in the case of any assessee— (b) in the case of any firm assessable as such,— (i) any payment of salary, bonus, commission or remuneration, by whatever name called (hereinafter referred