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

THEDCIT, 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

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

Section 36 and 43B a dear message given by the Hon'ble Finance Minister that the Government does not wish to allow employers to use the money deducted from the salary of employees. Accordingly, amount of employee's contribution must get deposited within the dates specified under the respective Act to remain eligible for the deduction u/s 36. 6.3 Since

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

ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI.P.C.JOSE, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 P.C. Jose .......... Appellant Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kochi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Circle - 2(1), Kochi Vs. P.C. Jose .......... Respondent Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 P.C. Jose

92,763/-. The AO had disallowed the loss claimed from business of card division of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The brief factual background leading to the above addition is as under: - P.C. Jose Gains from sale of land 4. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration the assessee had sold properties situated in a place called

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. 88,47,00,242/-. Accordingly, issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 24.06.2021. In response to the said notice the appellant filed return

MOOSPET SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 682 ,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Moospet Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Moospet P.O., Thrissur 680006 [Pan: Aaeam8229N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Shakthan Thampuran Ngar, Thrissur 680001 Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2025

92,982/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs. 4,52,13,522/- invoking provisions of section

PARISONS FOODS PRIVATE LTD,CALICUT vs. DCIT , CIRCLE 1(1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.(Through Virtual Hearing) Parisons Foods Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 6/1183, Kunhipari Buildins Kozhikode Calicut 673032 Vs. Pan – Aaccp2898J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Surendranath Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ilaiyaraja, K.S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 01.02.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is In The Business Of Refining & Sale Of Crude Edible Oil & Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.10.2005 & The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By Accepting The Returns. Subsequently The Cit Invoked His Suo Moto Revision Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act To Disallow The Additional Depreciation Claimed U/S 32(1)(Iia) Of The Act & Directed The Ao To Complete The Assessment De Novo By Considering The Claim Of Additional Depreciation Of 15%. Thereafter The Ld. Ao

disallowance made by him is in order. Against which the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on the ground that the action of the ld. AO in not allowing the additional depreciation is not correct and also in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and therefore

M/S MALLELIL INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO , THIRUVALLA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 72A of the Act are not satisfied. Thus, the AO disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before

ZACHARIA VARUGHESE,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO WARD 5, KOTTAYAM

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

92,112 and therefore he allowed these grounds. 6. The ld. AM differed from the views of the ld. JM and relying on the decision of the Chennai Bench in 111 taxmann.com 508 in the case of Baba Shankar Rajesh v. ACIT held that assessee is not entitled to such exemption with respect to the interest earned from

POLAKULATH NARAYANAN RENAI MEDICITY,KOCHI vs. THE DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Polakulath Narayanan Renai Dcit, Non Corporate Circle 1(1) Medicity C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Main Road, Palarivattom Vs. Kochi 682018 Kochi 682025 Pan – Aaifp7597B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Swarnalatha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.04.2023 In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Running A Hospital & During The Assessment Year The Assessing Authority Had Capitalised The Interest Component Of The Interior Works For The Reason That The Work Was Done Over A Period Of Time & Hence The Interest Till The Completion Of The Work Is To Be Capitalised. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Also Capitalised The Interest Component On The Capital Asset I.E.On The Sewage Plant Since The Same Was Put Into Use At The Fag End Of The Assessment Year. The Ao Also Treated The Interest On Fixed Deposits As Margin Money Under The Head ‘Income From Other

92,878/- was not set off u/s 32(2) while levying tax of Rs.4,05,940/- on Rs. 11,07,430/-, According to section 32(2) unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against any head of income. 4 Polakulath Narayanan Renai Medicity 5. Additional ground (ii). Omission to consider the revised return. The revised return filed

PANTHEERANKAVE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD -2(3), KOZHIKODE

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 Pantheerankav Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Olavanna, Kozhikode 673019 [Pan: Aaaap6394F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 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 12.12.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. The Appellant Had Not Filed Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2017-18. Based On The Information That The Appellant Made

section 144 at a total income of Rs. 2,54,78,140/-. While doing so, the AO had denied deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and made several disallowances. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

TOM GEORGE,PALAKKAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, PALAKKAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 28(v) of the Act, the remuneration received by the assessee from the firm is liable for taxation. The Ld.CIT(A) had considered the said issue and arrived a conclusion that the remuneration received from the firm is exempt in the hands of the assessee if the said amount is disallowed in the hands of the firm. Otherwise

KANICHUKULANGARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,KANICHUKULANGARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2017-18, date of order 30/06/2025. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (for brevity, the “Ld.AO”) passed u/s. 144of the Act, date of order 12/12/2019. 2 Kanichukulangara Service Co-opeative Bank Limited 2. The brief facts

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

disallowances becomes weak, as courts have consistently ruled that mere suspicion or unsubstantiated documents/statements cannot justify additions. 13.6 The assessee contended before the lower authorities, and before us, that the modifications to sales bills were legitimate adjustments made in the ordinary course of business. Given the nature of the goods traded—such as tiles, sanitary wares, and bathroom fittings, damages

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

disallowances becomes weak, as courts have consistently ruled that mere suspicion or unsubstantiated documents/statements cannot justify additions. 13.6 The assessee contended before the lower authorities, and before us, that the modifications to sales bills were legitimate adjustments made in the ordinary course of business. Given the nature of the goods traded—such as tiles, sanitary wares, and bathroom fittings, damages

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KASARAGOD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

disallowances becomes weak, as courts have consistently ruled that mere suspicion or unsubstantiated documents/statements cannot justify additions. 13.6 The assessee contended before the lower authorities, and before us, that the modifications to sales bills were legitimate adjustments made in the ordinary course of business. Given the nature of the goods traded—such as tiles, sanitary wares, and bathroom fittings, damages

ABC BUILDWAERS INDIA (P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

disallowances becomes weak, as courts have consistently ruled that mere suspicion or unsubstantiated documents/statements cannot justify additions. 13.6 The assessee contended before the lower authorities, and before us, that the modifications to sales bills were legitimate adjustments made in the ordinary course of business. Given the nature of the goods traded—such as tiles, sanitary wares, and bathroom fittings, damages