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.

11) The amendment took effect from 1 April, 1995 and accordingly applied, in relation to the assessment year 1995-96 and subsequent years. But till that amendment in 1995, and therefore covering the assessment year in question, the law as perceived by the Department was that if the cost of acquisition of a capital asset could not in fact

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

11) The amendment took effect from 1 April, 1995 and accordingly applied, in relation to the assessment year 1995-96 and subsequent years. But till that amendment in 1995, and therefore covering the assessment year in question, the law as perceived by the Department was that if the cost of acquisition of a capital asset could not in fact

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

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

11) The amendment took effect from 1 April, 1995 and accordingly applied, in relation to the assessment year 1995-96 and subsequent years. But till that amendment in 1995, and therefore covering the assessment year in question, the law as perceived by the Department was that if the cost of acquisition of a capital asset could not in fact

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

5:- the same to the owners of the property and also sell part of the building to the respective purchasers. The short question that arises is whether the said unregistered joint development agreement can be treated as a transfer of a capital asset for the purpose of imposing capital gains. 7. The liability for capital gains under section

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

5. Substantial question no.(c) reads thus: “c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in confirming the disallowance of the amount of Rs. 1,03,92,000/- being year-end provision for payment of commission as an unascertained liability? 5.1 The assessee for the Assessment Year 2009-10 booked an expenditure

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

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

5. The assessee replied briefly that the unexplained credit into the 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

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

5) Similarly the article 'a' is used in section 54F with respect to exemption from 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

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

5) Similarly the article 'a' is used in section 54F with respect to exemption from 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

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

5) Similarly the article 'a' is used in section 54F with respect to exemption from 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

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

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

5:- 6. We have heard Mr. Raja Kannan, the learned counsel for the assessee as well as Sri. P.K.Raveendranatha Menon, the learned Senior Advocate for the department duly instructed by Adv. Navneeth Pai. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the profits chargeable to tax as per Section 41(1)(a) of the Act ought

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

5. Assessee claimed that the loan advanced by it to the subsidiary was on consideration of business expediency and that was the reason for the loss of Rs.5.09 crores for the AY 2006-07. Therefore, it claimed deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. However, the assessing officer disallowed the loss. It was held that the expenditure incurred

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