THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

8 it was to meet the situation created by the decision in B.C. Srinivasa Shetty (128 ITR 294) (SC) and the I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 22 :: subsequent decisions of the High Court that the Finance Act, 1994, amended section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy

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

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

8 it was to meet the situation created by the decision in B.C. Srinivasa Shetty (128 ITR 294) (SC) and the I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 22 :: subsequent decisions of the High Court that the Finance Act, 1994, amended section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

8 it was to meet the situation created by the decision in B.C. Srinivasa Shetty (128 ITR 294) (SC) and the I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 22 :: subsequent decisions of the High Court that the Finance Act, 1994, amended section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy

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

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. Chapter VI deals with aggregation of income and set-off or carry forward

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

8. Substantial question no.(d) reads as follows: I.T.A. No. 249/2015 -13- “d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision of Special Bench in appellant's own case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interest component in the foreign exchange gain was a revenue receipt

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

8 `primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank' as a Society having its area of operation confined to 'a taluk`, the usage of the article `a' before the word `taluk' is not to be understood to indicate a single taluk for the following reasons: (1) Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act provides as under: 13(2): Gender

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

8 `primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank' as a Society having its area of operation confined to 'a taluk`, the usage of the article `a' before the word `taluk' is not to be understood to indicate a single taluk for the following reasons: (1) Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act provides as under: 13(2): Gender

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

8 `primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank' as a Society having its area of operation confined to 'a taluk`, the usage of the article `a' before the word `taluk' is not to be understood to indicate a single taluk for the following reasons: (1) Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act provides as under: 13(2): Gender

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

8 to section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On the facts and circumstances of this case, once the Department equated the charges payable to COFACE with interest, our judgment in the case of Deputy CIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. in Civil Appeals Nos. 3952-55 of 2002 comes in. ITA No.44/2017 -24- Accordingly, the said question

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

8:- 12. A glance at the history of Section 41 will reveal the purpose behind the enactment of this provision. Section 41(1) of the 1961 Act corresponds to Section 10(2)(A) of the Income Tax Act of 1922. In the decision in British Mexican Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Jackson (1932) 16 TC 570 (HL), it was held that

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

8:- and Others v. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Others [(2003) 263 ITR 706:[(2004) 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

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