US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Us Technology International Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) 621, Nila, Technopark Campus 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Kariyavattom, Trivandrum 695581 Kowdiar [Pan: Aaacu5628B] Thiruvananthapuram 695003 (Appellant) (Respondent)

deduction of such writing off of advances in the P&L Account, yet it has to be seen whether such writing off of advanced falls within the definition of transfer pricing

APOLLO TYRES LTD.,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI

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: 2020-21 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Acit, 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: 10.09.2025

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 14.06.2023 passed u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act suggested upward TP adjustment aggregating to Rs. 12,58,57,164/-. However, subsequently the order was rectified u/s. 154 of the Act on 12.06.2023 as under in respect

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 28.10.2016 3 Apollo Tyres Ltd. passed u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act suggested upward TP adjustments in respect of corporate guarantee commission provided to Apollo Vredestein BV (AVBV

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.NETWORK SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. The TPO, vide order dated Nretwrok Systems & Technologies P. Ltd. 29.01.2016 pass u/s. 92CA of the Act suggested upward adjustment in respect of commission on post services offered paid to Nihon Nest Corporation

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.NETWORK SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. The TPO, vide order dated Nretwrok Systems & Technologies P. Ltd. 29.01.2016 pass u/s. 92CA of the Act suggested upward adjustment in respect of commission on post services offered paid to Nihon Nest Corporation

PLANT LIPIDS (P) LTD.,KADAYIRUPPU vs. DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Kadayiruppu Po Kolenchery Dcit, Vs. Kerala 682 311 Corporate Circle-2(1) Kochi Pan No : Aabcp6061C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Thomson Thomas, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ao, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Dated 19.6.2024 Vide Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1065876641(1) For The Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 2 Of 8

Transfer Pricing Order made an adjustment of Rs.2,03,38,752/- towards notional guarantee commission in respect of corporate guarantee given by the assessee for its Subsidiary.After receiving the order of the TPO, the Assessing Officer made a draft assessment order u/s 144(1) proposing to make the following adjustments:- i. Addition as proposed by TPO — towards notional Guarantee Commission

FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal 95[Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

SONIYA DAVID LATHIKA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Soniya David Lathika The Ito, Ward-2(3) S. S. Nivas, Vizhinjam, Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar, Vs. Mukkola, Venganoor, Trivandrum-4 Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan/Gir No. Ajqpl 8228 A (Assessee) : (Respondent)

transfer the appellant suffered two disadvantages. One, she did not get the market price obtainable for urban land and two, she became liable to capital gains tax. The narration in the sale deed that if she got a better price than what she would have got from compulsory acquisition she would execute sale deed directly with VISL' is unworthy

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

price itself, in the Share Agreement (SA),would have had the effect of scotching or obliterating any such controversy, which arises, not, as one may expect, between the parties to the Agreement, but between the assessee and the Revenue. 9.4 The Controversy The basis of the assessee’s case, since accepted by the first appellate authority, is that only

SRI.K.P. JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

price itself, in the Share Agreement (SA),would have had the effect of scotching or obliterating any such controversy, which arises, not, as one may expect, between the parties to the Agreement, but between the assessee and the Revenue. 9.4 The Controversy The basis of the assessee’s case, since accepted by the first appellate authority, is that only

JAYALAKSHMI C MENON,THRISSUR vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

The appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Satish Kishore C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bwrpm3657H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Jayalakshmi C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bvypm1772M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Rajeshwari C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bvypm1866N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer of this type of jewellery belonging to a royal family is generally higher than the market value of the selfsame material, were it not a regalia. Therefore, for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of such an Item as on April 1, 1974 In order to deduct the same from actual sale price

RAJESHWARI C MENON,THRISSUR vs. DCIT ,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

The appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Satish Kishore C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bwrpm3657H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Jayalakshmi C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bvypm1772M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Rajeshwari C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bvypm1866N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer of this type of jewellery belonging to a royal family is generally higher than the market value of the selfsame material, were it not a regalia. Therefore, for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of such an Item as on April 1, 1974 In order to deduct the same from actual sale price

SATISH KISHORE C MENON,THRISSUR vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

The appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Satish Kishore C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bwrpm3657H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Jayalakshmi C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bvypm1772M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Rajeshwari C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bvypm1866N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer of this type of jewellery belonging to a royal family is generally higher than the market value of the selfsame material, were it not a regalia. Therefore, for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of such an Item as on April 1, 1974 In order to deduct the same from actual sale price

SANATANA DHARMA EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL SOCIETY,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section,— (i) … (ii) ….. (2) The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :— 6 ITA.Nos.278 & 279/COCH./2024 (a) …….. (b) ………….. (c) ………………… (d)…………. (4) ………………………. (5) This section applies to donations to any institution or fund referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause

SANATANA DHARMA VIDYASALA,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section,— (i) … (ii) ….. (2) The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :— 6 ITA.Nos.278 & 279/COCH./2024 (a) …….. (b) ………….. (c) ………………… (d)…………. (4) ………………………. (5) This section applies to donations to any institution or fund referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause

DCIT, COCHIN vs. SHRI M GEORGE ( MUKKADAYIL JOSEPH GEORGE), COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

price. The effect of the totality of the circumstances must be considered.’ (emphasis, supplied) 5.3 The foregoing statement/s of law would equally apply to all matters of fact where,as in the instant case, the term under reference is not subject to any positive definition under the Act or the cognate Act, keeping, again, the purpose for which the exemption

MRS. HEMA RAMNATH,KOCHI vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmihema Ramnath Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) 35/2968, Laxmi Villa Ernakulam 682018 Church Road, Palarivattom Vs. Kochi - 682025 [Pan:Aavpr8682G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

deduction allowed u/s. 54F(1) for AY 2007-08 to the extent of Rs. 25,58,075: Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. 54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee ……. (2) & (3) ............................ (4) The amount