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

ACIT CORPORATE, COCHIN vs. M/S.JOY ALUKKAS (INDIA) LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arms length price (ALP). The TPO vide order dated 27/01/2014 passed u/s. 92CA(3) made a recommendation towards TP adjustment of Rs.3,69,19,518/- to the value of international transactions. The Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order on 25/03/2014 proposing other additions also under normal provisions. The assessee filed objections before

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the arms length price (ALP). The TPO vide order dated 27/01/2014 passed u/s. 92CA(3) made a recommendation towards TP adjustment of Rs.3,69,19,518/- to the value of international transactions. The Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order on 25/03/2014 proposing other additions also under normal provisions. The assessee filed objections before

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)

36(1)(iii) of the Act. The DRP confirmed the addition of 2% of advertisement expenses of Rs. 1,40,79,290/-. 9. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax dated 29.1.2016 is against facts

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)

36(1)(iii) of the Act. The DRP confirmed the addition of 2% of advertisement expenses of Rs. 1,40,79,290/-. 9. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax dated 29.1.2016 is against facts

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

36(1) (viia) (d) provides that deduction in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by Non-Banking Financial Company can be allowed to an extent of an amount not exceeding 5% of the total amount computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VIA. A non-banking financial company shall have the meaning assigned

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, ground Nos

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

section 36(1)(va) of the Act was upheld, and (iii) Transfer pricing adjustment was reduced to Rs.6,72,554. 2.3 The Assessing

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.

iii) CIT vs. Promy Kuriakose [2016] 386 ITR 597 (Ker) (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3 vs. Dipak Jashvantlal Panchal [2017] 397 ITR 153 (v) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Index Securities Private Ltd., Vidya Shankar Investment Private Limited 2017(9) TMI 585 Delhi High Court (vi) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central

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

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(1) Trivandrum (`Assessing Officer’ or `AO’) having concurrent jurisdiction over the case, is bad on facts

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

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(1) Trivandrum (`Assessing Officer’ or `AO’) having concurrent jurisdiction over the case, is bad on facts

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

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 ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.KUNNEL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS P. LTD, KOCHI

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

iii) DCIT v Manish M Chheda 29 SOT 138 – Mumbai ITAT 7.2.3 In the above case, the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal was considering the applicability of section 28(iv) of the I T Act. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that during the course of assessee’s profession, a sum of Rs.29,60,000/- was realised/collected

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming