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

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

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

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

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

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

68,911/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The objection raised by the Assessee were disposed off by the DRP vide

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

section 80P of the Act on account of addition u/s. 68 of the Act. This ground of appeals of the assessee is dismissed. 9.8 The assessee has also submitted that the assessment was not made within the time specified u/s. 153 as the assessment order was served on 03/01/2017. However there is no ground raised by the assessee relating

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

section 80P of the Act on account of addition u/s. 68 of the Act. This ground of appeals of the assessee is dismissed. 9.8 The assessee has also submitted that the assessment was not made within the time specified u/s. 153 as the assessment order was served on 03/01/2017. However there is no ground raised by the assessee relating

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

section 80P of the Act on account of addition u/s. 68 of the Act. This ground of appeals of the assessee is dismissed. 9.8 The assessee has also submitted that the assessment was not made within the time specified u/s. 153 as the assessment order was served on 03/01/2017. However there is no ground raised by the assessee relating

THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

section 80P of the Act on account of addition u/s. 68 of the Act. This ground of appeals of the assessee is dismissed. 9.8 The assessee has also submitted that the assessment was not made within the time specified u/s. 153 as the assessment order was served on 03/01/2017. However there is no ground raised by the assessee relating

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

section 80P of the Act on account of addition u/s. 68 of the Act. This ground of appeals of the assessee is dismissed. 9.8 The assessee has also submitted that the assessment was not made within the time specified u/s. 153 as the assessment order was served on 03/01/2017. However there is no ground raised by the assessee relating

WELCARE HOSPITAL, SA ROAD, VYTTILA,VYTTILA vs. ASS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE (1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2018-19

36(1)(va) of the Act by the revenue authorities. 3. The assessee is a super specialty hospital, filed its return of income electronically on 24.10.2018 declaring an income of Page 2 of 6 Rs.89,82,050. The return was processed by CPC and intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 10.12.2019 was issued on 19.12.2019 raising a demand of Rs.12

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

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)of Income Tax Act and liable for TDS. 5.2 The Ld AO erred in not appreciating that the assessee company has made payment of Rs 1,07,08,950/- for clinical trials majorly

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

Section 36 deals with other deduction in respect of premium paid, interest etc. 3.7 In the present case, there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer that the sassessee has not incurred any expenditure. The only allegation is that the assessee has not rendered any services to M/s. Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. In our opinion when there

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

36(1) (va) of the Income Tax Act. 1961. In the impugned case the assesse has not remitted the amount contributed by the employees as per the respective Act. However, the assesse has remitted the said amount before filing his income tax return under Section 139(1) of the Act. It shows that the PF/ESI contribution received

THE DCIT, KOLLAM vs. M/S.TRANSWORLD HIRE PURCHASE INDIA LTD, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K.

36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act and in view of Explanation 1 to the said section, the provision cannot be allowed as a deduction. 8. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on record. The balance sheet filed along with the return for the year ending 31/03/1999 showed the 4 I.T.A. No.960/Coch/2005 provision

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

Section 80AC has been amended from AY. 2018-19 and deduction u/s 80P can be allowed only if the ITR is filed within the due date. g) In view of the above facts, the action of AO in making addition/adjustment of Rs.11,36,060/- is upheld. Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1 to 3 are dismissed. h) Ground of Appeal

RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

68 of the Act. The AO further observed that the assessee had sold land for Rs. 44,39,000 and claimed cost of improvement of Rs. 35,77,949 while computing capital gains. Since no supporting evidence for the cost of improvement was produced, the AO rejected the claim and computed the long-term capital gain

THEACIT, COCHIN vs. THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm & (Asst Year 2010-11)) The Ernakulam Dist Coop Bank Ltd Vs The Jt Director Of Income Tax Kakkanad (Exemption) Kochi Kochi ( Appellant/Respondent) (Respondent/Appellant)

36(1)(viia) to the extent of deduction of rural advances, the matter is now covered against the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 and also by the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., (supra). However