THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

10(3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)". 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

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

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

10(3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)". 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

10(3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)". 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

A.T.SHERIFF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

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

gains were imposed on the transaction. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the possession delivered was as a licensee for development of the property and not in the capacity of a transferee and that in the absence of registration of the agreement, it cannot be treated as one falling under section 53A of the TP Act. On appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES & INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

10) Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for non-agricultural use? (11) Whether permission under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of a non- agriculturist was for non-agricultural or agricultural use? (12) Whether the land was sold

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

gain for adjustment against cost of assets as per section 43A on actual payment restricted to : 4,72,34,591 6 Disallowance of claim of MTM loss on forward contract as deduction : 98,10,765 ITA No.44/2017 -5- 7 Disallowance of claim of prepaid expenses as deduction : 5,15,34,726 2.2 We have heard learned Counsel Mr Christopher Abraham

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

10. We notice that the Division Bench in Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery (P.) Ltd. has specifically found that the issue has to be decided on the facts arising in each case and there could be no general principle laid down. We find from the extracted portion in Karanpura Development Co. that here the lease was not part of the business

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

10. We notice that the Division Bench in Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery (P.) Ltd. has specifically found that the issue has to be decided on the facts arising in each case and there could be no general principle laid down. We find from the extracted portion in Karanpura Development Co. that here the lease was not part of the business

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

capital receipt and not a business receipt. By virtue of the fiction enacted under Section 41(1) of the 1963 Act, the difficulty created by the decision in British Mexican Petroleum case was overcome. The provision now by a legal fiction makes the amount so received to be treated as profits and gains includable in the total income

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

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

Sections 28 to 44 of the Act irrespective of doing business. He prays for answering substantial question Nos. 3 to 5 in favour of revenue and against the assessee. 10. Senior Adv.Mr.Joseph Markose argues that the assessee moved BIFR in 1987 and the case of assessee has been taken up for enquiry in 1991, BIFR found that the assessee could

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

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

Sections 28 to 44 of the Act irrespective of doing business. He prays for answering substantial question Nos. 3 to 5 in favour of revenue and against the assessee. 10. Senior Adv.Mr.Joseph Markose argues that the assessee moved BIFR in 1987 and the case of assessee has been taken up for enquiry in 1991, BIFR found that the assessee could

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

Sections 28 to 44 of the Act irrespective of doing business. He prays for answering substantial question Nos. 3 to 5 in favour of revenue and against the assessee. 10. Senior Adv.Mr.Joseph Markose argues that the assessee moved BIFR in 1987 and the case of assessee has been taken up for enquiry in 1991, BIFR found that the assessee could