THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

gains. The consideration will have to be treated as the individual income of the assessees and assessed accordingly under the appropriate head. We therefore set aside the said findings in the impugned order of the appellate tribunal and remand the matter back to the tribunal to pass a fresh order on this issue in the light of our findings above

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

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

gains. The consideration will have to be treated as the individual income of the assessees and assessed accordingly under the appropriate head. We therefore set aside the said findings in the impugned order of the appellate tribunal and remand the matter back to the tribunal to pass a fresh order on this issue in the light of our findings above

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

gains. The consideration will have to be treated as the individual income of the assessees and assessed accordingly under the appropriate head. We therefore set aside the said findings in the impugned order of the appellate tribunal and remand the matter back to the tribunal to pass a fresh order on this issue in the light of our findings above

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

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

34 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.05.2017 IN IT APPEAL No.41/Coch/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT: M/S.KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. KOTTAYAM - 686 001. (PAN AAAT 6523 E) BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM SRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGE SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SMT.RACHEL ABRAHAM RESPONDENT: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, KOTTAYAM

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

34 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.05.2017 IN IT APPEAL No.41/Coch/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT: M/S.KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. KOTTAYAM - 686 001. (PAN AAAT 6523 E) BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM SRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGE SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SMT.RACHEL ABRAHAM RESPONDENT: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, KOTTAYAM

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

34 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.05.2017 IN IT APPEAL No.41/Coch/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT: M/S.KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. KOTTAYAM - 686 001. (PAN AAAT 6523 E) BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM SRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGE SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SMT.RACHEL ABRAHAM RESPONDENT: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, KOTTAYAM

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

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

Sections 28 to 44 of the Act irrespective of doing business. He prays for answering substantial question Nos. 3 to 5 in favour of revenue and against the assessee. 10. Senior Adv.Mr.Joseph Markose argues that the assessee moved BIFR in 1987 and the case of assessee has been taken up for enquiry in 1991, BIFR found that the assessee could

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

Sections 28 to 44 of the Act irrespective of doing business. He prays for answering substantial question Nos. 3 to 5 in favour of revenue and against the assessee. 10. Senior Adv.Mr.Joseph Markose argues that the assessee moved BIFR in 1987 and the case of assessee has been taken up for enquiry in 1991, BIFR found that the assessee could

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

Sections 28 to 44 of the Act irrespective of doing business. He prays for answering substantial question Nos. 3 to 5 in favour of revenue and against the assessee. 10. Senior Adv.Mr.Joseph Markose argues that the assessee moved BIFR in 1987 and the case of assessee has been taken up for enquiry in 1991, BIFR found that the assessee could