THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy right. would be taken as nil. By this amendment, the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes of the provisions relating to capital gains was met. In other words, the cost of acquisition would be taken as determinable but the rate would

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

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

section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy right. would be taken as nil. By this amendment, the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes of the provisions relating to capital gains was met. In other words, the cost of acquisition would be taken as determinable but the rate would

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy right. would be taken as nil. By this amendment, the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes of the provisions relating to capital gains was met. In other words, the cost of acquisition would be taken as determinable but the rate would

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

2(47)(v) of the Act, by legislation, all essential ingredients of Section 53A of the TP Act are liable to be fulfilled to render such an agreement as transferring a capital asset. 10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the issue involved in the case has already been considered in the decision in Commissioner

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

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

11,96,323/-. On 28.10.1997 income tax return was processed and a refund of Rs.6,08,136/- was ordered in favour of the assessee. Subsequently, scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in the scrutiny assessment, examined the sale of schedule property by MoA dated 01.12.1995 read with sale deed

M/S. APPOLLO TYRES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2. M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd Kochi/Assessee is the appellant. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ernakulam/Revenue is the respondent. 3. The assessee assails the order dated 21.11.2014 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal) Cochin Bench in IT(TP)A No.02/Coch/2014. The issues canvassed in the appeal relate to the return filed by the assessee

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

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

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

11. Once the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, the deeming provision enacted in the closing part of Section 41(1)(a) of the Act gets attracted and the amount obtained becomes chargeable to income tax as profits and gains of business or profession. Reference to the above propositions can be derived from the decisions laid down by the Supreme Court

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., TRICHUR

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

capital gain, the entire I.T.A. No.485/2009 -12- claim of Rs.30 lakhs cannot be allowed in an order purported to be a rectification order on the ground that it is made a mistake in the earlier order assuming wrongly that it has the power to restrict the allowance to a reasonable extent. In this way, I am of the opinion that

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

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

2. The assessee is a company engaged in manufacture and sale of automobile tyres and tubes. For the I.T.A. No.272/13 -:3:- assessment year 2006-07, the assessing officer computed the total income of the asessee at Rs.66,15,44,477/-. While computing the total income of the assessee, an amount of Rs.5,09,01,000/- claimed as a deduction

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

11 2 2003-04 28.7.2005 Appeal No.ITA 74/R-II/E/CIT- II/05-06 dated 7.2.2006 ITA No.483/2009 3 1998-99 29.12.2003 Appeal No.ITA-58/R-2/E/CIT- II/03-04 dated 3.9.2004 ITA No.758/2009 4 1997-98 17.3.2003 Appeal No.ITA-3/R-11/E/CIT- II/03-04 dated 28.8.2003 ITA No.860/2009 5 2001-02 16/01/2004 Appeal No.ITA-69/R-2/E/CIT- II/03-04 dated 3.9.2004 ITA No.903/2009 6 2000-01 16.12.2004 Appeal No.ITA-41/R-2/E/CIT-

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

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

11 2 2003-04 28.7.2005 Appeal No.ITA 74/R-II/E/CIT- II/05-06 dated 7.2.2006 ITA No.483/2009 3 1998-99 29.12.2003 Appeal No.ITA-58/R-2/E/CIT- II/03-04 dated 3.9.2004 ITA No.758/2009 4 1997-98 17.3.2003 Appeal No.ITA-3/R-11/E/CIT- II/03-04 dated 28.8.2003 ITA No.860/2009 5 2001-02 16/01/2004 Appeal No.ITA-69/R-2/E/CIT- II/03-04 dated 3.9.2004 ITA No.903/2009 6 2000-01 16.12.2004 Appeal No.ITA-41/R-2/E/CIT-

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

11 2 2003-04 28.7.2005 Appeal No.ITA 74/R-II/E/CIT- II/05-06 dated 7.2.2006 ITA No.483/2009 3 1998-99 29.12.2003 Appeal No.ITA-58/R-2/E/CIT- II/03-04 dated 3.9.2004 ITA No.758/2009 4 1997-98 17.3.2003 Appeal No.ITA-3/R-11/E/CIT- II/03-04 dated 28.8.2003 ITA No.860/2009 5 2001-02 16/01/2004 Appeal No.ITA-69/R-2/E/CIT- II/03-04 dated 3.9.2004 ITA No.903/2009 6 2000-01 16.12.2004 Appeal No.ITA-41/R-2/E/CIT-

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

11 OF 2008 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 297/2006 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S: TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. VALANJAVATTOM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADVS. SRI RAJA KANNAN, SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR; SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT/S: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX OTHER PRESENT: ADV RAJA KANNAN FOR THE APPELLANT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME