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

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

transfer pricing adjustment of INR.23,71,760/- and restore this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer/TPO for denovo adjudication. The Assessee is directed to produce all relevant documents/detauks before the Assessing Officer/TPO to substantiate that transaction under consideration were on cost to cost basis and did not include any mark up. Thus, Ground No. 8 raised

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

Transfer Pricing) (,TPO'), inter alia, since the TPO has not recorded an opinion that any of the conditions in section 92C(3) of the Act, were satisfied in the instant case. Accordingly, the order passed by the TPO is without jurisdiction.; 2.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and accordingly

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

Transfer Pricing) (,TPO'), inter alia, since the TPO has not recorded an opinion that any of the conditions in section 92C(3) of the Act, were satisfied in the instant case. Accordingly, the order passed by the TPO is without jurisdiction.; 2.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO and accordingly

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) shall be a sum equal

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. 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), 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. 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

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)

11 UA(1 )(c)(b). 15. Mr. B S. Soparkar, learned counsel appearing for the assessee would support the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) cannot be invoked as was rightly held by the appellate authority, as what was found by the appellate 12 Sils Karingattil Jose

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)

transfers to sister concerns, the value of tins was already embedded in the sale price, an issue decided by the first Appellate authority in favour of the assessee. (emphasis, ours) 4. The assessee thus failing to improve his case in any manner, penalty was levied for the same reasons, finding the assessee’s offer of an additional sum of Rs.180.40

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

price relating to the buildings, I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Plant and Machinery etc. belonging to an estate is never allowed as a revenue expenditure and it is not right on the part of the assessee to categorize the cost of acquisition of a thing as a revenue expenditure and the thing, as a capital asset. Therefore

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

price relating to the buildings, I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Plant and Machinery etc. belonging to an estate is never allowed as a revenue expenditure and it is not right on the part of the assessee to categorize the cost of acquisition of a thing as a revenue expenditure and the thing, as a capital asset. Therefore

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

price relating to the buildings, I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Plant and Machinery etc. belonging to an estate is never allowed as a revenue expenditure and it is not right on the part of the assessee to categorize the cost of acquisition of a thing as a revenue expenditure and the thing, as a capital asset. Therefore

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

price relating to the buildings, I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Plant and Machinery etc. belonging to an estate is never allowed as a revenue expenditure and it is not right on the part of the assessee to categorize the cost of acquisition of a thing as a revenue expenditure and the thing, as a capital asset. Therefore