ERNAKULAM REGIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNIONS LTD.,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 32(1)(iia) which as submitted is mandatory in nature. It may also be noted that there is no provision in the Act providing that balance 50 % will not be allowed in succeeding year. Reducing grant from WDV for purpose of depreciation The assessee during the year received a grant of Rs.3,72,68

THE KALAKKODU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahu(Assessment Year:2018-19

68 of the Act. 12. Let us first examine the applicability of the Circular to the case on hand. Circular Dated 2-11-2016 refers to Section 32

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.KUNNEL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS P. LTD, KOCHI

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

68 of Finance Act, 1994 read with rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the service tax becomes payable only on receipt of service tax from the client. Therefore, the amount of service tax included in bills but not received could not be disallowed under s. 43B’. After analysing the relevant provisions of Incometax Act as well as Service

SMT.K.B.SONY,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

32, 36, 37, 38, 40, 40A (other than sub-section (3) and (4) thereof) 41, 43, 43A, 43B and 43C of the Income Tax Act shall so far as may be, apply accordingly. Rule 6. Where the result of the computation for previous year in respect of any source of agricultural income is a loss, such loss shall

SUPRIYA ENTERPRISES,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S. Supriya Enterprises Principal Commissioner Of 16,263, Calicut Road Income Tax Vs. Manjeri, Malappuram 676121 Kozhikode

32,287/-. which was found credited in the books of accounts of the assessee, but failed in not treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The section

SRI.SUDHEESH KUMAR K,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-4, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14

68 of the Income Tax Act, where the section talks about sums credited in the books of accounts. There is lack of application by the Assessing Officer. Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 4,32

M/S.KADUNA HOSPITALITY P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

68,157/- was different from that of solatium of Rs. 41,31.979/- and interest of Rs. 1,09,03,339/- (aggregating to Rs. 1,50,35,318/-) and therefore only the solatium and interest could be taxed as per the provisions of section 45(5)(b) read with section 145A(b) in the AY 2013-14 and compensation

V.K.M FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,TAMILNADU vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Vkm Feeds Private Limited, Acit, Central Circle, 2, Reservoir Street, Thrissur Venkatesa Colony, Vs. Pollachi-642001 Tamil Nadu Pan : Aafcv2454D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shaji Paulose, Ca For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025

32,460/-, the assessee was asked to explain the discrepancy. In response, the assessee submitted that the Promoter Director had only mentioned the approximate amount of profit and not the profit after finalization of the accounts, which was declared by the assessee in the original return of income. The assessee further submitted that thePromoter Director meant the total income earned

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

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

32 of the Act. Balance additional depreciation cannot be allowed in subsequent AY, i.e. the year under consideration – Rs. 36,21,58,356/- iii. Disallowance of pre-operative expenditure details of which were extracted by the AO vide para 9 of the draft assessment order. These pre-operative expenditure was incurred for the purpose of setting up of new plant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. ARUN RAJ PILLAI, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

32,765/- as unexplained money of the appellant for the alleged failure of the assessee to offer any plausible explanation in support of the source of above mentioned investment vide order dated 18.03.2020 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. 7. Before we deal with the issues in the present appeal, it is significant to make a note

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. ARUN RAJ PILLAI, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

32,765/- as unexplained money of the appellant for the alleged failure of the assessee to offer any plausible explanation in support of the source of above mentioned investment vide order dated 18.03.2020 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. 7. Before we deal with the issues in the present appeal, it is significant to make a note

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. ARUN RAJ PILLAI, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

32,765/- as unexplained money of the appellant for the alleged failure of the assessee to offer any plausible explanation in support of the source of above mentioned investment vide order dated 18.03.2020 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. 7. Before we deal with the issues in the present appeal, it is significant to make a note

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. ARUN RAJ PILLAI, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

32,765/- as unexplained money of the appellant for the alleged failure of the assessee to offer any plausible explanation in support of the source of above mentioned investment vide order dated 18.03.2020 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. 7. Before we deal with the issues in the present appeal, it is significant to make a note

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. ARUN RAJ PILLAI, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

32,765/- as unexplained money of the appellant for the alleged failure of the assessee to offer any plausible explanation in support of the source of above mentioned investment vide order dated 18.03.2020 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. 7. Before we deal with the issues in the present appeal, it is significant to make a note

M/S.C&R HOTELS PVT. LTD,FORT KOCHI vs. THE DCIT,CORP CIR(1)(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 32(2) of the Act. Insofar as the unexplained cash credit, the assessee gave the details of the loan amount received from its Director which are all effected through the banking transactions. The assessee also explained that a further sum of Rs. 34,26,046/- are related to the share application money received from the Director

MR.SEEGLIN JOSE MORAIS OUSEPH,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 albeit to an agreement for sale ought to have been appreciated by the authorities. 7. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) ought to have given due weightage to affidavits and personal relations between the parties which ought not have been neglected. 8. The CIT(A) ought to have give