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. REENA JOSE

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. 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

TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMSSR;INCOME TAX,C-I,THIRUVALLA

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

42 ITR 49 5 (1962) 44 ITR 362 6 (1967) 66 ITR 596 ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -16- KSBC, the rental income earned from such activity be reckoned as income from the business. According to him, the said argument is without merit. That, the mere fact the assessee derives operational advantage is not the criteria for classifying

TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

42 ITR 49 5 (1962) 44 ITR 362 6 (1967) 66 ITR 596 ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -16- KSBC, the rental income earned from such activity be reckoned as income from the business. According to him, the said argument is without merit. That, the mere fact the assessee derives operational advantage is not the criteria for classifying

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. 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