THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

disallowance under section 14A of the Act RWR 8D has to be made even when the tax paid for a particular year is not earned in exempt income. DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi v. SFO Technologies Private Limited 9

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

disallowance under section 14A of the Act RWR 8D has to be made even when the tax paid for a particular year is not earned in exempt income. DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi v. SFO Technologies Private Limited 9

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

disallowance under section 14A of the Act RWR 8D has to be made even when the tax paid for a particular year is not earned in exempt income. DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi v. SFO Technologies Private Limited 9

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

disallowance under section 14A of the Act RWR 8D has to be made even when the tax paid for a particular year is not earned in exempt income. DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi v. SFO Technologies Private Limited 9

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ERNAKULAM

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

disallowance under section 14A of the Act RWR 8D has to be made even when the tax paid for a particular year is not earned in exempt income. DCIT, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi v. SFO Technologies Private Limited 9

M/S. ASPINWALL & CO. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year:2011- 12

disallowance made by the assessee on ad hoc basis amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- under section 14A did not bother to make any inquiry in this regard. Even no iota of evidence was brought to our knowledge by learned A.R. that the Assessing Officer made the inquiry in this regard. We, therefore, do not find any inquiry in the order

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.71,07,988/- which is only in the nature of a provision. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that even the learned Assessing Officer’s corresponding assessment in para 2 nowhere raised such an issue of capital write off. We make it clear that we are dealing with an assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.71,07,988/- which is only in the nature of a provision. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that even the learned Assessing Officer’s corresponding assessment in para 2 nowhere raised such an issue of capital write off. We make it clear that we are dealing with an assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.71,07,988/- which is only in the nature of a provision. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that even the learned Assessing Officer’s corresponding assessment in para 2 nowhere raised such an issue of capital write off. We make it clear that we are dealing with an assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.71,07,988/- which is only in the nature of a provision. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that even the learned Assessing Officer’s corresponding assessment in para 2 nowhere raised such an issue of capital write off. We make it clear that we are dealing with an assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting to Rs: 9

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting to Rs: 9

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting to Rs: 9

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting to Rs: 9

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting to Rs: 9

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting to Rs: 9

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “4.2.1 The Appellant had paid Rs.2,44,46,754 towards contribution to Staff Retirement Benefit Fund. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the said payment is in contravention of the provisions of section 40A(9

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “4.2.1 The Appellant had paid Rs.2,44,46,754 towards contribution to Staff Retirement Benefit Fund. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the said payment is in contravention of the provisions of section 40A(9