THRIUVANNATHAPURAM JILLA DEPOSIT COLLECTION AGENTS CO-OP SOCIETY,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhasst.Year 2017-18 Thiruvannathapuram Jilla Ito, Deposit Collection Agents V. Ward-2(1), Trivendrum Cooperative Society, Central Theater Road, Attara Building, Pazhavangadi, Thiruvananthapuram-695036 Kerala Pan : Aafat0403J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Date Of Pronouncement : 05.11. 2024 Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This Assessee’S Appeal In Ita No.417/Coch/2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) / Nfac Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051459380(1) Dated 28.03.2023, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act” Hereinafter. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. It Is Accordingly Proceed Exparte.

section 40(a)(ia) disallowance, unexplained cash credits addition u/s.68 of Rs.2,87,14,321/-, section 69 unexplained investment addition

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

87,197\n271(1)(c)\n2010-11\n8,11,240\n10,71,240\n271(1)(c)\n2011-12\n9,99,970\n9,99,970\nNil\n2012-13\n20,47,120\n22,47,120 271(1)(c)\nYours faithfully,\n(Dr. SANJAY JOSEPH)\nJoint Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Range, Ernakulam\n10.\nThe above communication is nothing but a covering letter

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

87,197\n271(1)(c)\n2010-11\n8,11,240\n10,71,240\n271(1)(c)\n2011-12\n9,99,970\n9,99,970\nNil\n2012-13\n20,47,120\n22,47,120 271(1)(c)\nYours faithfully,\n(Dr. SANJAY JOSEPH)\nJoint Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Range, Ernakulam\n10. The above communication is nothing but a covering letter

THUMPAMON THAZHAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raothumpamon Thazham Service The Income Tax Officer Co-Operative Bank Vaishnav Arcade, M.C. Road Thumpamon Thazham P.O. Vs. Thiruvalla 689101 Pathanamthitta 689625 [Pan: Aadat5434H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

87,381 by disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(i)(a) on interest income. 2 Thumpamon Thazham Service Co-op. Bank 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was called

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowing of Electricity Duty paid/ payable u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.43,87,44,000 on the ground that such Electricity Duty is an exclusive levy on the assessee. The facts of the case are as under. 2.2 The assessee submitted that the Ld.AO erred on facts of the case, since electricity duty

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowing of Electricity Duty paid/ payable u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.43,87,44,000 on the ground that such Electricity Duty is an exclusive levy on the assessee. The facts of the case are as under. 2.2 The assessee submitted that the Ld.AO erred on facts of the case, since electricity duty

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowing of Electricity Duty paid/ payable u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.43,87,44,000 on the ground that such Electricity Duty is an exclusive levy on the assessee. The facts of the case are as under. 2.2 The assessee submitted that the Ld.AO erred on facts of the case, since electricity duty

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowing of Electricity Duty paid/ payable u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.43,87,44,000 on the ground that such Electricity Duty is an exclusive levy on the assessee. The facts of the case are as under. 2.2 The assessee submitted that the Ld.AO erred on facts of the case, since electricity duty

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowing of Electricity Duty paid/ payable u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.43,87,44,000 on the ground that such Electricity Duty is an exclusive levy on the assessee. The facts of the case are as under. 2.2 The assessee submitted that the Ld.AO erred on facts of the case, since electricity duty

YENKEY ROLLER FLOUR MILLS,CALICUT vs. DCIT C-1(1), KOZHIKKODE

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

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

87,670/-. While doing so, the AO made certain disallowances on account of disallowance of interest and disallowance on account of excess wastage and depreciation, etc. Subsequently, the AO sought to reopen the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 23.03.2013 after recording the following reasons u/s. 147 of the Act:- "Information has been received from investigation

NEW KABLE POINT,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

disallowed an amount of Rs 65,285/ under section 36 of the Act in the total income statement The assessing authority had again added an amount of Rs 65,285/ being the contribution of PF from employees not paid before the due date for paying the PF under section 36 of the Income Tax Act .Though a petition for rectification

AMBALAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,AMBALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed the and stay application stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 53/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ambalapuzha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kakkazham, Vandanam, Alappuzha 688005 [Pan: Aacak0787F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer. Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

87,91,516 of the Act on account of source loan/ advances given 5 Cessation of liability u/s. 41(1) of the Act 1,57,54,371 6 Disallowance of provisions debited in Profit 46,45,372 & Loss A/c. Total 17,76,69,258 Ambalapuzha Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before

MARIA JOHN,WAYANAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KALPETTA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2024-25 Maria John .......... Appellant Nooranal, Sultan Bathery, Chungam, Wayanad. [Pan: Fadpm 3434 G] Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Kalpetta .......... Respondent

disallowing rebate u/s. 87A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the CPC by holding that rebate u/s. 87A was not allowable in respect of income declared on long term capital gain by making reference to the provisions of section

ROY CHERIAN KAILATH,PATHANAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-4, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

87,300. While doing 2 ITA No.397/Coch/2024. Sri.Roy Cherian Kailath. so, the AO disallowed the claim of set off of interest expenditure of Rs.32,50,021 paid on drawings from partnership firm M/s.Kailath Estate Investments, of which the assessee is a partner, against the interest on capital received from M/s.Kailath Financiers of Rs.18,25,467. 3. The brief factual background

APOLLO TYRES LTD.,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.09.2025

87,57,064 Out of the above expenditure the DSIR in Form 3CL quantified the eligible amount as under: - (Rs. In lakhs) Land and Building Rs. 280.30 Capital Expenditure (Capital Rs. 1280.86/- Equipment other than Building) 3498.12 Revenue Expenditure Rs. 8122.42/- Building Rs. 133,26/- Total Rs. 11620.54/- The AO was of the opinion that in the absence of quantification

MALANADU FARMERS SOCIETY ,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

87,70,264 and that the AO did not examine the claim of the assessee for an exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(E) issued a show cause notice u/S. 263 of the Act which reads as under:- “"2. In your case, for the AY 2017-18, assessment was completed on 11/10/2019 accepting the return of income

MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

87,70,264 and that the AO did not examine the claim of the assessee for an exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(E) issued a show cause notice u/S. 263 of the Act which reads as under:- “"2. In your case, for the AY 2017-18, assessment was completed on 11/10/2019 accepting the return of income

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

87,291/-. While doing so, the AO brought to tax the export incentive entitlement which is credited to the Profit & Loss A/c. but not offered to tax. The appellant company has been accounting the export incentive entitlement under various schemes Sud-Chemie India Pvt. Ltd. in the year of export following the mandatory accounting principles. However, for income tax purpose