APPLEXUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

Section 144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal which can be grouped as under: Ground No.1: Incorrect rejection of transfer pricing

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

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

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer 94[or the Transfer Pricing

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.

2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer 94[or the Transfer Pricing

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.31,09,52,334/- (b) Loss on onerous contracts of INR.5,66,26,572/- (c) Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of INR.77,71,759/- (d) Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of 2

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

section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. But such contribution received by the Trust or any other on behalf of the Trust can be considered as income of the Trust only and not as income of the recipient. 6.4 The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the share of donation as per the seized material after deducting

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

section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. But such contribution received by the Trust or any other on behalf of the Trust can be considered as income of the Trust only and not as income of the recipient. 6.4 The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the share of donation as per the seized material after deducting

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

section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. But such contribution received by the Trust or any other on behalf of the Trust can be considered as income of the Trust only and not as income of the recipient. 6.4 The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the share of donation as per the seized material after deducting

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

section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. But such contribution received by the Trust or any other on behalf of the Trust can be considered as income of the Trust only and not as income of the recipient. 6.4 The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the share of donation as per the seized material after deducting

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

section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. But such contribution received by the Trust or any other on behalf of the Trust can be considered as income of the Trust only and not as income of the recipient. 6.4 The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the share of donation as per the seized material after deducting

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

section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. But such contribution received by the Trust or any other on behalf of the Trust can be considered as income of the Trust only and not as income of the recipient. 6.4 The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the share of donation as per the seized material after deducting

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

section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. But such contribution received by the Trust or any other on behalf of the Trust can be considered as income of the Trust only and not as income of the recipient. 6.4 The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the share of donation as per the seized material after deducting

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

section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. But such contribution received by the Trust or any other on behalf of the Trust can be considered as income of the Trust only and not as income of the recipient. 6.4 The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the share of donation as per the seized material after deducting

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

section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. But such contribution received by the Trust or any other on behalf of the Trust can be considered as income of the Trust only and not as income of the recipient. 6.4 The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the share of donation as per the seized material after deducting

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

section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. But such contribution received by the Trust or any other on behalf of the Trust can be considered as income of the Trust only and not as income of the recipient. 6.4 The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the share of donation as per the seized material after deducting

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

section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. But such contribution received by the Trust or any other on behalf of the Trust can be considered as income of the Trust only and not as income of the recipient. 6.4 The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the share of donation as per the seized material after deducting