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

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

va) of the Act of INR.77,71,759/- (d) Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of 2 Assessment Year 2013-2014 INR.12,68

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

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

M/S. VYSALI PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,ERNAKULAM vs. THE PCIT, KOCHI-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Ix/639, Edathala P.O. Of Income Tax -1 Vs. Ernakulam 683561 C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road [Pan:Aaacv 5491P] Kochi - 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2024 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Agitates The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 30/10/2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (Pr. Cit) Vide Order Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30.03.2022. 2. The 68-Day Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Explained By An Affidavit Dated 14.7.2023 By Shri A.D. Krishnan, Managing Director Of The Assessee-Company. We Find The Reasons Stated Therein As Genuine & Debilitative Of The Assessee’S Capacity In Filing The Appeal In Time. The Appeal Was Accordingly Admitted & The Hearing Proceeded With.

section 263 of the Act dated 30.03.2022. 2. The 68-day delay in filing the appeal is explained by an Affidavit dated 14.7.2023 by Shri A.D. Krishnan, Managing Director of the assessee-company. We find the reasons stated therein as genuine and debilitative of the assessee’s capacity in filing the appeal in time. The appeal was accordingly admitted

THE ITO,, COCHIN vs. M.SKERALA AYURVEDA LTD, ALUVA

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

68,682, a sum of Rs.4,87,58,962 was investment made in a foreign subsidiary company, which does not give raise to any exempted income, and therefore, the provisions of section 14A of the I.T.Act does not have application to the investment to the tune of Rs.4,87,58,962. The investment amounting to Rs.6

THE ITO,, COCHIN vs. M.SKERALA AYURVEDA LTD, ALUVA

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

68,682, a sum of Rs.4,87,58,962 was investment made in a foreign subsidiary company, which does not give raise to any exempted income, and therefore, the provisions of section 14A of the I.T.Act does not have application to the investment to the tune of Rs.4,87,58,962. The investment amounting to Rs.6