THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 14A Cochin International Airport Ltd. read with Rule Rule 8D. The decisions of the Kolkata and Chennai Benches of the ITAT in the cases of ITO vs. Narain Prasad Dalmia: ITA No. 1180/K/2011 for the AY 2008-09 and ACIT v. Best & Crompton Engg Ltd. ITA No.1603/Mds/2012 for the AY 2009-10 too are applicable. fff) On the debate

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 14A Cochin International Airport Ltd. read with Rule Rule 8D. The decisions of the Kolkata and Chennai Benches of the ITAT in the cases of ITO vs. Narain Prasad Dalmia: ITA No. 1180/K/2011 for the AY 2008-09 and ACIT v. Best & Crompton Engg Ltd. ITA No.1603/Mds/2012 for the AY 2009-10 too are applicable. fff) On the debate

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of 2 Assessment Year 2013-2014 INR.12,68,911/- The Assessee has now preferred the present appeal challenging Final Assessment Order. The Assessee has raised 17 Grounds of Appeal which are taken up in seriatim hereinafter. Ground No.1 3. Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee reads as under: “1. That

KAVUNGAL VAREED ITTEERA,KERALA vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2020-21

disallowance since the contribution to PF & ESI was made before the due date of filing the return. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) has considered the issue of whether the employees contribution paid before

FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed the claim of provisions on standard assets and confined its provisions only to an extent of bad and doubtful debts on the Page 6 of 9 non-performing assets. Hence there is no error in the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. 6. Section 263 is to be invoked when the twin conditions of order being erroneous

DIVYAJYOTHI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO ( EXEMPTION WARD), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

89,718/- has been made by the Assessing Officer. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has purchased certain books for library. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the books purchased by the assessee for subject Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics (PCM) text are expenditure of capital in nature and hence, same cannot

KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 115JB. Further, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 21,22,943/- which was paid to Mr. Pradeep Kumar for the supply of latex. The AO treated the said amount as payment made towards the work done by him and therefore TDS should have been deducted and for the failure to deduct tax he disallowed the same

KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 115JB. Further, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 21,22,943/- which was paid to Mr. Pradeep Kumar for the supply of latex. The AO treated the said amount as payment made towards the work done by him and therefore TDS should have been deducted and for the failure to deduct tax he disallowed the same

KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 115JB. Further, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 21,22,943/- which was paid to Mr. Pradeep Kumar for the supply of latex. The AO treated the said amount as payment made towards the work done by him and therefore TDS should have been deducted and for the failure to deduct tax he disallowed the same

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

89, 90, 251 & 252/Coch./2017 2. The Revenue pleads the identical sole substantive ground in both these appeals as under : 1. “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), erred in restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A to the extend, exempt income earned and erred in deleting the disallowance made in respect of provision made towards wage arrears. 2. The appeal

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

89, 90, 251 & 252/Coch./2017 2. The Revenue pleads the identical sole substantive ground in both these appeals as under : 1. “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), erred in restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A to the extend, exempt income earned and erred in deleting the disallowance made in respect of provision made towards wage arrears. 2. The appeal

JACOB THOMAS,KOZHENCHERRY vs. ACIT, THIRUVALLA RANGE, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jacob Thomas .......... Appellant 1, Mulamoottil, Kozhencherry 689641 [Pan: Ackpt3269L] Vs. Acit, Ward-1 & Tps, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)], Dated 27.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Business’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 31.12.2020 Declaring Nil. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Ward -1, Thriuvalla (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 28.09.2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The 2 Jacob Thomas Act) At A Total Income Of Rs. 59,34,921/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made Disallowance Of Interest Expenditure Claimed Of Rs. 89,73,412/- U/S. 57 Of The Act. Accordingly, A Show Cause Notice Was Issued U/S. 274 R.W.S 270A Of The Act. The Appellant Had Failed O Respond To The Above Show Cause Notice. In The Circumstances The Ao Had Proceeded With Levy Penalty Of Rs. 57,24,630/- U/S. 270A By Holding That The Appellant Is Guilty Of Misreporting Income.

89,73,412/- u/s. 57 of the Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 270A of the Act. The appellant had failed o respond to the above show cause notice. In the circumstances the AO had proceeded with levy penalty of Rs. 57,24,630/- u/s. 270A by holding that the appellant is guilty of misreporting