THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT.GRACY BABU,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

income from other sources”. 11.5 The contention of the Ld. AR is that since there is no cost of acquisition, it is not possible to compute capital gain as section 55(2) of the I.T. Act does not include this kind of asset as capital asset. For better understanding, we will examine the provisions of section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

income from other sources”. 11.5 The contention of the Ld. AR is that since there is no cost of acquisition, it is not possible to compute capital gain as section 55(2) of the I.T. Act does not include this kind of asset as capital asset. For better understanding, we will examine the provisions of section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. GRACY BABU,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

income from other sources”. 11.5 The contention of the Ld. AR is that since there is no cost of acquisition, it is not possible to compute capital gain as section 55(2) of the I.T. Act does not include this kind of asset as capital asset. For better understanding, we will examine the provisions of section

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

capital account has been treated as deemed income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act (for short ‘the Act’). Therefore, it falls under one of the other heads under Section 14 of the Act. Once the deemed income becomes an income earned under one head or the other of Section 14, for the relevant assessment year, there

M/S.CARBON AND CHEMICALS (INDIA) LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KOCHI

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

addition directed by the Assessing Officer. 5. The Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. It was held by the Tribunal that the deduction claimed for tax and interest already paid was inadmissible and the appeal was allowed, thereby restoring the order of the Assessing Officer. Briefly prefaced the controversy for a decision on the points referred by the Tribunal

TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMSSR;INCOME TAX,C-I,THIRUVALLA

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

capital leading to profits of business, which profits may be either enjoyed or put back into the business to acquire more properties for further profitable exploitation." ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -25- 8.4 Next decision on the point is Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee, a limited company, being the plot owner, developed it into a building fitted with

TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

capital leading to profits of business, which profits may be either enjoyed or put back into the business to acquire more properties for further profitable exploitation." ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -25- 8.4 Next decision on the point is Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee, a limited company, being the plot owner, developed it into a building fitted with

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTD

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), Cochin Bench, Cochin. The Tribunal, through the order impugned in the appeal, allowed in part the ITA No.44/2017 -4- appeal of the assessee, either accepted the case of the assessee or desired that the matter needs re-examination by the Assessing Officer, accordingly remitted a few issues. 2.1 The Revenue, being aggrieved

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

additional investment agreed to be made by ATL for modernising the then existing plant and machinery in the premises of the assessee. Section 14 deals with the heads of income and income derived by the ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 21 assessee is profit and gain of business or profession of the assessee. The permissible deductions or expenses available while

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

additional investment agreed to be made by ATL for modernising the then existing plant and machinery in the premises of the assessee. Section 14 deals with the heads of income and income derived by the ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 21 assessee is profit and gain of business or profession of the assessee. The permissible deductions or expenses available while

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

additional investment agreed to be made by ATL for modernising the then existing plant and machinery in the premises of the assessee. Section 14 deals with the heads of income and income derived by the ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 21 assessee is profit and gain of business or profession of the assessee. The permissible deductions or expenses available while

M/S.KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

capital gains on the purchase of a residential house'. This has come up for interpretation in many cases as indicated below: • Vittal Krishna Conjeevaram vs. ITO (2013) 144 ITD 325 (Hyd) . ITA Nos.34 & 35 of 2018 & 25 & 27 of 2019 10 • CIT and Anor. Vs. D Ananda Basappa (2009) ITR 329 (Kar) • CIT vs. Smt. KG Rukumini Amma

THE MEENACHIL CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

capital gains on the purchase of a residential house'. This has come up for interpretation in many cases as indicated below: • Vittal Krishna Conjeevaram vs. ITO (2013) 144 ITD 325 (Hyd) . ITA Nos.34 & 35 of 2018 & 25 & 27 of 2019 10 • CIT and Anor. Vs. D Ananda Basappa (2009) ITR 329 (Kar) • CIT vs. Smt. KG Rukumini Amma

THE MEENACHIL CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

capital gains on the purchase of a residential house'. This has come up for interpretation in many cases as indicated below: • Vittal Krishna Conjeevaram vs. ITO (2013) 144 ITD 325 (Hyd) . ITA Nos.34 & 35 of 2018 & 25 & 27 of 2019 10 • CIT and Anor. Vs. D Ananda Basappa (2009) ITR 329 (Kar) • CIT vs. Smt. KG Rukumini Amma