CONDIS INDIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

88,51,340/- claiming the same as exempted from tax u/s 10(34) of the Act. However, the assessee has not made any disallowance under the provisions of section

CONDIS INDIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

88,51,340/- claiming the same as exempted from tax u/s 10(34) of the Act. However, the assessee has not made any disallowance under the provisions of section

CONDIS INDIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

88,51,340/- claiming the same as exempted from tax u/s 10(34) of the Act. However, the assessee has not made any disallowance under the provisions of section

KOODARANHI REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL WELFARE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

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

disallowing chapter VI A deduction of Rs 12,68,076/- since the appellant has filed the return under section 139(4) of the act and made the above claim. 3. The return for the above was filed on 12/03/2020 by claiming deduction under section SOP of the act to an extent of Rs 12,68,076/- and both the Centralized

CHANDIROOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. JCIT, RANGE 1, ALAPPUZHA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

88,750 levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under the assessee is a cooperative society, filed its return of income on 19.12.2017, declaring total income at ‘Nil’. The assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 17.12.2019, disallowing

PANICHIKANDY MOHANDASAN,KASARGOD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. While making the disallowance the AO observed that genuineness of transaction is not sufficient. The AO also disallowed the claim of depreciation on Multiplex and shopping Mall by holding that construction is not complete. Similarly the AO also disallowed interest on of Rs. 7,88

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

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

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

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

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

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

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

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

M/S SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

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

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

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

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The ITO, Ward-2, Alappuzha (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs. 58,00,000/- formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In response to the notice the appellant submitted that

PLANT LIPIDS (P) LTD,KOLENCHERY vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. .......... Appellant Kadayiruppu P.O., Kolenchery Ernakulam 682311 [Pan: Aabcp6061C] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 2(1) .......... Respondent C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Kochi 682018

disallowance under section 14A r.w. rule 8D of I.T. Rules the average value of investment was wrongly adopted at Rs. 26,70,05,428/- as against the correct average value of investment of Rs. 88

THE MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. PVT. LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE & TPS, KOTTAYAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Malayala Manorama Co Pvt Ltd .......... Appellant Manorama Building, K K Road, Kottayam – 686001, Kerala. Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Circle & Tps, Kottayam.

section 14A of the Act cannot be made without recording a finding that the appellant has incurred expenditure for earning exempt income. The CIT(A) accepted the explanation in respect of the source of cash deposit of Rs. 4,10,000/-. However, confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 88,500/-. With regard to the disallowance

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

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

Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

88,39,340/-. It has claimed that it spent for the assessment year 2008-09 Rs.50.31 Lakh to renovate and modernize its transmission network. So, the amount spent is over 50% of the then existing establishment's book value. Indeed, the undertaking squarely falls under Section 80-1A(4)(iv) (c) of the Act. The renovation or modernization, admittedly

ESATTO BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ACIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the foregoing terms, and it’s stay petition dismissed as unfructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Sa No. 120/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Esatto Builders Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2(1) 29/229 A5, 229 A6, Jp Complex Kozhikode 673001 Near Civil Station, Quilandy Vs. Kozhikode 673305 [Pan: Aacce2371D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

88,38,176/- under the head "disallowance of depreciation" amounting to Rs. 1,79,338/-, "unexplained credits" amounting to Rs.36,06,592/-, "Long term borrowings amounting to Rs. 13,78,662/-, "Claim of non- existent loans amounting to Rs.51,16,310/-, "inflated liabilities claimed" amounting to Rs. 75,64,200/-, "interest disallowance" amounting to Rs.4,33,088/-, "disallowance" amounting

PHARMACON,KOCHI vs. DCIT,NON CORP, CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pharmacon .......... Appellant 35/2977, B 5, First Floor, Shopping Complex Pallinada, Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aalfp0115C] Vs. Dcit, Non Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2025

88,990/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed the claim for deduction of commission payment of Rs. 44,76,750/- by observing that the commission expenses were booked on the last day of the accounting year, i.e. 31.03.2017 and the assessee had failed to substantiate the said expenditure. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before