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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) (vii)of the Act, in consonance, with Vijaya Bank (supra) and the declaration made therein. The income tax appeals are partly allowed.” 8. We thus restore the assessee’s instant sec.36(1)(vii) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh verification in light of “Vijay Bank” and the relevant write off in the balance sheet

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) (vii)of the Act, in consonance, with Vijaya Bank (supra) and the declaration made therein. The income tax appeals are partly allowed.” 8. We thus restore the assessee’s instant sec.36(1)(vii) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh verification in light of “Vijay Bank” and the relevant write off in the balance sheet

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) (vii)of the Act, in consonance, with Vijaya Bank (supra) and the declaration made therein. The income tax appeals are partly allowed.” 8. We thus restore the assessee’s instant sec.36(1)(vii) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh verification in light of “Vijay Bank” and the relevant write off in the balance sheet

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) (vii)of the Act, in consonance, with Vijaya Bank (supra) and the declaration made therein. The income tax appeals are partly allowed.” 8. We thus restore the assessee’s instant sec.36(1)(vii) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh verification in light of “Vijay Bank” and the relevant write off in the balance sheet

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance of provisions of bad and doubtful debts to the extent of Rs. 57.57 crores is deleted. 3. The CIT(A) has erred on the following points while deleting the Book profit enhancement consequent to bad and doubtful debt the extent of Rs. 57.57 crores. 3.1. Vijaya Bank decision is applicable only for normal Income and not MAT Income [Minimum

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE -1 (1), KOCHI vs. M/S GEOFIN COMTRADE LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

vii), i.e., is not obliterated (written off), and represents normal provision toward diminution in the value of debtors, it would be liable to be allowed u/s. 36(1)(viia), an independent provision, which stands on its own footing, as explained in Catholic Syrian Bank v. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC). This provision, though again liable to be reflected

ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.GEOFIN COMTRADE LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

vii), i.e., is not obliterated (written off), and represents normal provision toward diminution in the value of debtors, it would be liable to be allowed u/s. 36(1)(viia), an independent provision, which stands on its own footing, as explained in Catholic Syrian Bank v. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC). This provision, though again liable to be reflected

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1)(vii). Your appellant craves leave to add or to amend and/or vary the grounds of appeal before or at time of hearing.” 9. Suffice to say, both the learned representatives during the course of hearing duly agree that the hon'ble jurisdictional high court has itself settled the issue in department’s favour so far as allowability

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1)(vii). Your appellant craves leave to add or to amend and/or vary the grounds of appeal before or at time of hearing.” 9. Suffice to say, both the learned representatives during the course of hearing duly agree that the hon'ble jurisdictional high court has itself settled the issue in department’s favour so far as allowability

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1)(vii). Your appellant craves leave to add or to amend and/or vary the grounds of appeal before or at time of hearing.” 9. Suffice to say, both the learned representatives during the course of hearing duly agree that the hon'ble jurisdictional high court has itself settled the issue in department’s favour so far as allowability

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1)(vii). Your appellant craves leave to add or to amend and/or vary the grounds of appeal before or at time of hearing.” 9. Suffice to say, both the learned representatives during the course of hearing duly agree that the hon'ble jurisdictional high court has itself settled the issue in department’s favour so far as allowability

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1)(vii). Your appellant craves leave to add or to amend and/or vary the grounds of appeal before or at time of hearing.” 9. Suffice to say, both the learned representatives during the course of hearing duly agree that the hon'ble jurisdictional high court has itself settled the issue in department’s favour so far as allowability

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1)(vii). Your appellant craves leave to add or to amend and/or vary the grounds of appeal before or at time of hearing.” 9. Suffice to say, both the learned representatives during the course of hearing duly agree that the hon'ble jurisdictional high court has itself settled the issue in department’s favour so far as allowability

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, 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: 01.09.2025

disallowing the claim of Rs 14,06,31,409/- u/s 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS 5.1 The Ld. AO has erred in considering reimbursement of Rs 12,68,42,880/- towards Salary and other R&D expenses within the scope of "Fee for technical Services under explanation 2 of section 9(1)(vii

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

9 challenges the correctness of the findings of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 1,17,70,000/- being 10% of the labour charges on adhoc basis. The contention of the appellant that in the absence of incriminating material casting doubts on the genuineness of the expenditure incurred on labour charges, no addition can be made u/s. 153A

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

9 challenges the correctness of the findings of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 1,17,70,000/- being 10% of the labour charges on adhoc basis. The contention of the appellant that in the absence of incriminating material casting doubts on the genuineness of the expenditure incurred on labour charges, no addition can be made u/s. 153A

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

9 challenges the correctness of the findings of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 1,17,70,000/- being 10% of the labour charges on adhoc basis. The contention of the appellant that in the absence of incriminating material casting doubts on the genuineness of the expenditure incurred on labour charges, no addition can be made u/s. 153A

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

9 challenges the correctness of the findings of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 1,17,70,000/- being 10% of the labour charges on adhoc basis. The contention of the appellant that in the absence of incriminating material casting doubts on the genuineness of the expenditure incurred on labour charges, no addition can be made u/s. 153A