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.

16) There is no dispute that a tenancy right is a capital asset the surrender of which would attract section 45 so that the value received would be a capital receipt and assessable if at all only under item E of section 14. That being so, it I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 23 :: cannot

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

16) There is no dispute that a tenancy right is a capital asset the surrender of which would attract section 45 so that the value received would be a capital receipt and assessable if at all only under item E of section 14. That being so, it I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 23 :: cannot

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

16) There is no dispute that a tenancy right is a capital asset the surrender of which would attract section 45 so that the value received would be a capital receipt and assessable if at all only under item E of section 14. That being so, it I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 23 :: cannot

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

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

gain with Foreign Exchange implication on capital account. He refers to the following paragraphs in ONGC case to argue that the reported decisions of the Supreme Court deal with both, capital loss and revenue loss, on account of foreign exchange fluctuation and that adjustment in actual cost is made on actual payment. The paragraphs relied

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

capital loss had been claimed as business loss. Hence, the reliance of the assessee on the order of the ITAT for A.Y. 2002-03 in totally misplaced as the facts were totally different in A.Y.2002-03. 11.4 The investment was made by the assessee in a separate juridical corporate entity. The transaction between the two distinct, separate legal entities are subject

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

16 dated 18.04.2018 ITA No.295/Coch/2018 dated 17.10.2018 ITA No.27 of 2019 For convenience, the learned counsel referred to the circumstances in ITA No.25 of 2019 as the lead case. ITA No.25 of 2019 5. The assessee is the Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, claimed and availed the benefits of deduction under Section 80P of the Income

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

16 dated 18.04.2018 ITA No.295/Coch/2018 dated 17.10.2018 ITA No.27 of 2019 For convenience, the learned counsel referred to the circumstances in ITA No.25 of 2019 as the lead case. ITA No.25 of 2019 5. The assessee is the Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, claimed and availed the benefits of deduction under Section 80P of the Income

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

16 dated 18.04.2018 ITA No.295/Coch/2018 dated 17.10.2018 ITA No.27 of 2019 For convenience, the learned counsel referred to the circumstances in ITA No.25 of 2019 as the lead case. ITA No.25 of 2019 5. The assessee is the Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, claimed and availed the benefits of deduction under Section 80P of the Income

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

16 TC 570 (HL), it was held that once a loss or expenditure is allowed as a deduction or as a trading liability, recoupment of the loss or expenditure or remission of the trading liability would be a capital receipt and not a business receipt. By virtue of the fiction enacted under Section

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

gains” under the business or profession. The expenditure I.T.A. No.272/13 -:10:- referred to in section 37 of the Act will undoubtedly include expenses incurred as a measure of commercial expediency. 14. The words commercial expediency is a word of wide import. It has been held that the said word can include such expenditure that a prudent businessman would incur

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