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

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

1), Thiruvananthapuram (Assessing Officer' or learned AO') pursuant to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel -II (learned Panel), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed.” 3.1. Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee does not require specific adjudication and is dismissed as being general in nature. Ground No.2 4. Ground

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

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

50,02,98,250 15 Reimbursement of expenses 1,07,78,001 16 Recovery of expenses 3,69,14,146 3. On noticing the above international transactions, the AO referred the matter to the 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

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee’s last substantive ground. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in very terms. ITA No. 233/Coch/2024 – AY : 2006-07 5. The assessee has raised it’s sole substantive ground claiming section 244A interest inter alia for the sole reason that his tribunal had passed its order

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee’s last substantive ground. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in very terms. ITA No. 233/Coch/2024 – AY : 2006-07 5. The assessee has raised it’s sole substantive ground claiming section 244A interest inter alia for the sole reason that his tribunal had passed its order

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee’s last substantive ground. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in very terms. ITA No. 233/Coch/2024 – AY : 2006-07 5. The assessee has raised it’s sole substantive ground claiming section 244A interest inter alia for the sole reason that his tribunal had passed its order

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee’s last substantive ground. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in very terms. ITA No. 233/Coch/2024 – AY : 2006-07 5. The assessee has raised it’s sole substantive ground claiming section 244A interest inter alia for the sole reason that his tribunal had passed its order

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee’s last substantive ground. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in very terms. ITA No. 233/Coch/2024 – AY : 2006-07 5. The assessee has raised it’s sole substantive ground claiming section 244A interest inter alia for the sole reason that his tribunal had passed its order

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee’s last substantive ground. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in very terms. ITA No. 233/Coch/2024 – AY : 2006-07 5. The assessee has raised it’s sole substantive ground claiming section 244A interest inter alia for the sole reason that his tribunal had passed its order

DCIT, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S ACEELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO, LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

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

price after retaining liabilities to be borne by the purchaser. In Clause 3.2 of the sale deed executed between the assessee and the purchaser it is clearly stated that the undertaking is transferred as a going concern on "slump sale basis". The assessee also initially treated the sale of industrial unit as "slump sale" and when income tax return

ACEELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO.LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. DCIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

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

price after retaining liabilities to be borne by the purchaser. In Clause 3.2 of the sale deed executed between the assessee and the purchaser it is clearly stated that the undertaking is transferred as a going concern on "slump sale basis". The assessee also initially treated the sale of industrial unit as "slump sale" and when income tax return

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

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)

1, 2010. Explanatory Notes Explaining the Provisions of Finance Bill reads as under*: "Taxation of certain transactions without consideration or for inadequate consideration. Under the existing provisions of section 56(2)(vii), any sum of money or any property in kind which is received without 7 Sils Karingattil Jose consideration or for inadequate consideration (in excess of the prescribed limit

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

50% of additional claim of Rs. 75,89,85,525/- revenue expenditure 3 Apollo Tyres Ltd. 150% Capital Expenditure Rs. 53,87,57,064 Out of the above expenditure the DSIR in Form 3CL quantified the eligible amount as under: - (Rs. In lakhs) Land and Building Rs. 280.30 Capital Expenditure (Capital Rs. 1280.86/- Equipment other than Building) 3498.12 Revenue Expenditure

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

Transfer pricing adjustment was reduced to Rs.6,72,554. 2.3 The Assessing Officer on receipt of the DRP’s order dated 12.08.2016, passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C r.w.s. 92CA of the I.T.Act and issued the demand notice u/s 156 of the Act raising a total demand of Rs.9,38,08,666. 2.4 Aggrieved

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

50,77,620. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.37,77,62,220. Subsequently the PCIT issued a show cause notice by stating that – “the assesse had debited Rs. 3,38,000 towards ‘provision/(Excess reversal) for Loss Assets” and Rs.2,45,000/- towards ‘provision

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI vs. SRI.PRINCE JOSEPH, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

50% of the price agreed was paid while in the this case, 80% of the sale consideration have been paid. 4. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the fact that the AO established implied handing over of possession in the assessment order. The sale consideration received by the assessee has not been refunded to the buyer