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

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

1) has been initiated; (b) in a case where an assessment or reassessment has the effect of reducing the loss declared in the return or converting that loss into income, the amount of under- reported income shall be the difference between the loss claimed and the income or loss, as the case may be, assessed or reassessed. (4) Subject

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. 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, 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

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

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)

4 Sils Karingattil Jose DCF method. The appellant also submitted the valuation report. The Assessing Officer found that it is not backed by any documentary evidence. Hence, the Assessing Officer rejected the valuation report of the appellant and made the valuation as per NAV method in accordance with Rule 11U r.w. Rule 11UA (1)(c)(b) of the Income

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.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)

4 IT (TP) A No. 119/Coch/2016 & IT (TP) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 M/s. Joyalukkas India Pvt. Ltd. c) Addition on account of insurance claim received on leasehold improvements of Rs. 17,16,427/- d) Disallowance on account of excess depreciation claimed on residential building of Rs. 5,55,305/- e) Disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(viii) of Rs. 1

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)

4 IT (TP) A No. 119/Coch/2016 & IT (TP) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 M/s. Joyalukkas India Pvt. Ltd. c) Addition on account of insurance claim received on leasehold improvements of Rs. 17,16,427/- d) Disallowance on account of excess depreciation claimed on residential building of Rs. 5,55,305/- e) Disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(viii) of Rs. 1

APOLLO TYRES LTD.,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI

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: 2020-21 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Acit, 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: 10.09.2025

4. Regarding transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 3.07.02.519% on Cost-to-Cost Recovery of Salary expenses from AEs a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/TPO/DRP grossly erred in not appreciating that the recovery of salary expenses of Rs. 14,38,73,097/- (which was rectified by Ld. TPO vide

US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed of statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Us Technology International Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) 621, Nila, Technopark Campus 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Kariyavattom, Trivandrum 695581 Kowdiar [Pan: Aaacu5628B] Thiruvananthapuram 695003 (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) Consilient Technologies Pvt. Ltd. g) Cybage Software Pvt Ltd h) OFS Technologies Ltd Ground No. 4-Erroneous data used by the TPO 4.1. The Ld. AO/DRP/TPO has erred in law in using data, which was not contemporaneous and which was not available in the public domain at the time of conducting the transfer pricing study by the Appellant. Ground

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

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

MRS. HEMA RAMNATH,KOCHI vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmihema Ramnath Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) 35/2968, Laxmi Villa Ernakulam 682018 Church Road, Palarivattom Vs. Kochi - 682025 [Pan:Aavpr8682G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) been the cost of the new asset, shall be charged under section 45 as income of the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw the unutilised amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid. 2.2 The assessee

ABDUL GAFOOR MUHAMMED POTTICHI,TALIPARAMBA 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