THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other

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

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

13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other

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

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

10 to 13 are various incomes that are I.T.A. No.216/2013 -14- treated as not forming part of the income of the assessee. Chapter IV deals with the computation of total income. Section 14 deals with heads of income. Sections 45 to 55 deal with computation of capital gains

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

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

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

10 of AS-II such adjustment in the carrying amount of the fixed assets was not possible, particularly in the light of section 43(1). The unamended section 43A nowhere required as condition precedent for making necessary adjustment in the carrying amount of the fixed asset that there should be actual payment of the increased/decreased liability as a consequence

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

capital gains is per se illegal. He relies on the judgments reported in Ms Srinivasa Naicker v. Income Tax Officer6; and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4, Chennai v. M/s. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd7 for the proposition that the judgment relied on by the Revenue is considered by the Madras High Court and it has been finally held that

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 & 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 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

10. The circumstances relating to substantial question No.3 are that the assessee under Section 35(2AB) claimed weighted deduction amounting to Rs.5,79,01,415/-. The assessee could establish before the ITAT that it is entitled to claim the expenses, salaries etc. and the Tribunal disallowed the weighted deduction amounting to Rs.2,89,50,708/-. The assessee claims to have

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

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.APOLLO TYRES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

10 SCC 1] in support of his contentions. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the Department, on the other hand, submitted that the loss incurred by the assessee was on account of the loan availed for purchasing a capital asset in South Africa through the subsidiary companies and as it was intended for procuring a capital asset, the loss

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

capital, moved an application under Sec.15 of the Sick Industries (Special ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 13 Provisions) Act 1985 (for short 'Act 1985') before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for framing scheme under Act 1985. The application moved by the assessee was registered as Case No.023/91 (39/87). For disposal of appeals it is sufficient to note

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

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

capital, moved an application under Sec.15 of the Sick Industries (Special ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 13 Provisions) Act 1985 (for short 'Act 1985') before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for framing scheme under Act 1985. The application moved by the assessee was registered as Case No.023/91 (39/87). For disposal of appeals it is sufficient to note

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

capital, moved an application under Sec.15 of the Sick Industries (Special ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 13 Provisions) Act 1985 (for short 'Act 1985') before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for framing scheme under Act 1985. The application moved by the assessee was registered as Case No.023/91 (39/87). For disposal of appeals it is sufficient to note