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.

gain as section 55(2) of the I.T. Act does not include this kind of asset as capital asset. For better understanding, we will examine the provisions of section 55(2) of the I.T. Act. S. 55 (2) For the purposes of sections 48 and 49, "cost of acquisition",- (a) in relation to a capital asset, being goodwill

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

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

gain as section 55(2) of the I.T. Act does not include this kind of asset as capital asset. For better understanding, we will examine the provisions of section 55(2) of the I.T. Act. S. 55 (2) For the purposes of sections 48 and 49, "cost of acquisition",- (a) in relation to a capital asset, being goodwill

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

gain as section 55(2) of the I.T. Act does not include this kind of asset as capital asset. For better understanding, we will examine the provisions of section 55(2) of the I.T. Act. S. 55 (2) For the purposes of sections 48 and 49, "cost of acquisition",- (a) in relation to a capital asset, being goodwill

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

15 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 208/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/Appellant: M/S BHIMA JEWELLERS 6/785 A1, MYSORE ROAD, CHUNGUM JUNCTION, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD-673 592. BY ADV S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT/Respondent/Revenue: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.08.2022, THE COURT

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 (2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC) I.T.A. No. 249/2015 -20- recorded that the Woodward Governor India P. Ltd case deals with revenue loss and the situation in the case on hand deals with capital assets. The result of the brief discussion of the Assessing Officer is that: “unrealised foreign exchange gain of Rs.1,63,97,541/- is disallowed and added

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

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 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

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 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

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

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

15 lakhs was allowable as payment for vacating tenancy in computation of 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

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

15 reopened the assessment under Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally was on the ground that the income received as lease rent from ATL could not have been treated as business income, and the lease rental amount qualifies as income from other sources. The case of assessee and the department in this behalf has been stated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

15 reopened the assessment under Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally was on the ground that the income received as lease rent from ATL could not have been treated as business income, and the lease rental amount qualifies as income from other sources. The case of assessee and the department in this behalf has been stated

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

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

15 reopened the assessment under Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally was on the ground that the income received as lease rent from ATL could not have been treated as business income, and the lease rental amount qualifies as income from other sources. The case of assessee and the department in this behalf has been stated