M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

section 234B of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (`the Act’) amounting to Rs.5,60,56,510); and (iii) Raising a net demand payable of Rs.20,55,69,980 upon the Appellant. Ground No.2 – Assessment and reference to Transfer Pricing Officer are bad in law. 2.1 The draft order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

section 234B of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (`the Act’) amounting to Rs.5,60,56,510); and (iii) Raising a net demand payable of Rs.20,55,69,980 upon the Appellant. Ground No.2 – Assessment and reference to Transfer Pricing Officer are bad in law. 2.1 The draft order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1

SRI. ELDHOSE K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THEDCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeals for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 are allowed while the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

Price paid Other Exp. Total Rs. Particulars of Land Rs. Rs. Rs. 1 18.06.2008 3724/08 3,00,000 9,81,000 38,000 10,19,000 49.05 Cents in Sy.No.491/2/2Agrl. Land in ArakuzhaPanchayath 2 18.06.2008 3725/08 80,000 3,01,400 10,000 3,11,400 15.070 Cents in Sy. No.492/2/2 in ArakuzhaPanchayath 3 02.07.2008 4096/08

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

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 SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

transferred to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO on classification of rural branches for section 36(1) (viia) based on population of village instead of population of ward. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 6. Without prejudice

SILLS KARINGATTIL JOSE,NEDUMKANDOM vs. ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1,03,000 rights shares allotted to the assessee proportionate to his shareholding in the company as it cannot be said that the assessee has received as there is transfer of the shares which pre-existed prior to the issuance of shares by the company as there is vital difference between "creation" and "transfer of shares". The words "allotment

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1)(c) of the Act vide notice u/s. 274 of even date: 2 Prakash R. Nair v. Dy.CIT, Central Circle i. Claim for deduction u/s 80IA(Rs.68,82,867/-) was rejected. ii. Bank interest of Rs. 3,13,508/- was assessed as ‘Income from Other Sources’. iii. The claim for deduction u/s 80HHC was restricted with reference to section 801A

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

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment in the draft assessment order. The final assessment order was passed on 26.04.2013. The assessee, however, claims that the final assessment order was not received by it. Thereafter reassessment notice was issued and orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act was passed on 27.03.2015. The Assessing Officer in the reassessment completed, disallowed the amount claimed

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

1. The order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax dated 29.1.2016 is against facts and law. 5 IT (TP) A No. 119/Coch/2016 & IT (TP) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 M/s. Joyalukkas India Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Transfer Pricing Officer, assessing officer and Dispute Resolution are not justified is treating the transactions with AIRas as entered into Deemed Associated Enterprise

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,TRICHUR vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

1. The order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax dated 29.1.2016 is against facts and law. 5 IT (TP) A No. 119/Coch/2016 & IT (TP) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 M/s. Joyalukkas India Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Transfer Pricing Officer, assessing officer and Dispute Resolution are not justified is treating the transactions with AIRas as entered into Deemed Associated Enterprise

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM vs. M/S.OLAM AGRO INDIA P. LTD, KOLLAM

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

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

transfer pricing adjustments. 4. Against this, the Revenue is in appeal before us. The Revenue has relied on the grounds raised. I.T.A. No.560/Coch/2019 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment was bad in law as no draft assessment order was given to the assessee in violation of provisions contained in section 144C of the I.T. Act and, therefore