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

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

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

section 40(a)(ia) will be equally inapplicable in a case in which tax has not been deducted at source or after deduction has not been paid before the expiry of the stipulated due date. 9. In the light of the above , the appellant submits that the confirmation of disallowance

VAM GROUP HI-TECH ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Vam Group Hi-Tech Engineering Dcit, Circle - 1 Pvt. Ltd. Alappuzha X/685, Vam House, Vs. Pathirappally P.O., Alappuzha 688521 [Pan: Aaacv6606N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance therefore cannot exceed the sum of Rs. 9,600/- only under section 14A r.w. rule 8D of Income Tax Rule

M/S.MUKKAM MEGA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCEITY 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.

9 2. The first appellate authority is not justified in sustaining the disallowance made by Centralized Processing Centre by disallowing chapter VI A deduction of Rs 43,17,817/-since the appellant has filed the return under 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.

disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139; or SP No.77/Coch/2022 & ITA No.953/Coch/2022 Page 6 of 9

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

9 Ayurgreen Ayurveda Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. 8. We have heard ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noted that the AO disallowed an amount of Rs.7,70,039/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that payments of employees contribution towards ESI and PF had not been made

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143 or total income assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. Page 9

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

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

Section 92B of the Act. We also reject the contention of the Assessee that continuing debit balance of short term advances did not constitute an ‘International Transaction’. Therefore, Ground No. 4.1 raised by the Assessee is dismissed. 5.3. During the assessment proceedings the TPO noted that the Assessee was providing loans and advances to its AEs and was not charging

THACHANATTUKARA FARMERS PRODUCERS COMPANY,PALAKKAD vs. ITO WARD 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

section 80AC of the Act, i.e., extendingthe disallowance of deductions on account of their being not claimed per a return filed within the time specified u/s.139(1) to the provisions specified in the latter (s. 80AC). While this is again restored w.e.f. 01/4/2021, there is a clear mismatch for the intervening period, resulting in the disallowance of deduction

KOLLAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO WARD 2 , KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

section 80AC of the Act, i.e., extendingthe disallowance of deductions on account of their being not claimed per a return filed within the time specified u/s.139(1) to the provisions specified in the latter (s. 80AC). While this is again restored w.e.f. 01/4/2021, there is a clear mismatch for the intervening period, resulting in the disallowance of deduction

M/S OLAVANNA SERVICE CO-OP BANK,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

section 80AC of the Act, i.e., extendingthe disallowance of deductions on account of their being not claimed per a return filed within the time specified u/s.139(1) to the provisions specified in the latter (s. 80AC). While this is again restored w.e.f. 01/4/2021, there is a clear mismatch for the intervening period, resulting in the disallowance of deduction