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

APPLEXUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

section 92C(3)(c), the TPO held that the data used in the computation of the ALP is not reliable or correct. On these reasons, the TPO rejected the TP Documentation and 13 Assessment Year 2021-2022 decided to conduct a fresh search of comparables considering the functions performed, the assets employed and the risks assumed by the taxpayer

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

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

13,172/- with its Associated Enterprises. The case of the Assessee was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA of the Act for determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in relation to the said international transactions. TPO passed order, dated 28/10/2016, under Section 92CA(3) of the Act proposing an upward transfer pricing adjustment

MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

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

MALANADU FARMERS SOCIETY ,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

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

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other

THE ACIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SMT.GRACY BABU, ADOOR P.O.

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SRI.JOSE THOMAS, ADOOR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other