THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

capital gains cannot be assessed. A perusal of the trust deed in the instant cases I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 24 :: does not indicate that any power was conferred on the trustees to relinquish their position as trustees en banc. Rather, as noticed by the Supreme Court in Sheikh Abdul Kayum and Others

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.

capital gains cannot be assessed. A perusal of the trust deed in the instant cases I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 24 :: does not indicate that any power was conferred on the trustees to relinquish their position as trustees en banc. Rather, as noticed by the Supreme Court in Sheikh Abdul Kayum and Others

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

capital gains cannot be assessed. A perusal of the trust deed in the instant cases I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 24 :: does not indicate that any power was conferred on the trustees to relinquish their position as trustees en banc. Rather, as noticed by the Supreme Court in Sheikh Abdul Kayum and Others

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

capital gain. The sources now clubbed together are distinct and separate. The first source, namely income from the sale of shares/units in mutual funds is a non-taxable source in view of Section 10(38) of the Act and excluded from computation for arriving at income. Therefore, the loss from these non-taxable sources is not available

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

5:- the same to the owners of the property and also sell part of the building to the respective purchasers. The short question that arises is whether the said unregistered joint development agreement can be treated as a transfer of a capital asset for the purpose of imposing capital gains. 7. The liability for capital gains under section

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

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

5. Substantial question no.(c) reads thus: “c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in confirming the disallowance of the amount of Rs. 1,03,92,000/- being year-end provision for payment of commission as an unascertained liability? 5.1 The assessee for the Assessment Year 2009-10 booked an expenditure

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? b) is not the conclusion of the Tribunal against law and perverse? I.T.A. No.179/2014 -11- 3. Whether, the Tribunal is right in finding that the subject land is admittedly agricultural land"; "the land was used for agricultural purpose", "the assessee used the land for agricultural operation till the date of sale and are not the findings factually wrong

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

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

5. The assessee replied briefly that the unexplained credit into the 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

JIK GEORGE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2

Appeal is dismissed

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

capital gains as the property sold was the agricultural land situated beyond the limit prescribed in Panchayath.” 5. The counsel appearing for parties invite the attention of this Court to the unreported judgment dated 11.12.2017 in I.T.A No.251 of 2015 which has considered a question arising under Section

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

5) Similarly the article 'a' is used in section 54F with respect to exemption from capital gains on the purchase

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

5) Similarly the article 'a' is used in section 54F with respect to exemption from capital gains on the purchase

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

5) Similarly the article 'a' is used in section 54F with respect to exemption from capital gains on the purchase

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

5:- 6. We have heard Mr. Raja Kannan, the learned counsel for the assessee as well as Sri. P.K.Raveendranatha Menon, the learned Senior Advocate for the department duly instructed by Adv. Navneeth Pai. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the profits chargeable to tax as per Section 41(1)(a) of the Act ought

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

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

capital gain, the entire TAX claim of Rs.30 lakhs, cannot be allowed in an order purported to be a rectification order on the ground that it made a mistake in the earlier order assuming wrongly that it has the power to restrict the allowance to a reasonable extent. In this way I am of opinion that such debatable issue cannot

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

5. Assessee claimed that the loan advanced by it to the subsidiary was on consideration of business expediency and that was the reason for the loss of Rs.5.09 crores for the AY 2006-07. Therefore, it claimed deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. However, the assessing officer disallowed the loss. It was held that the expenditure incurred

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

gains of business/profession of the assessee. The acceptance of case of assessee would facilitate deductions under 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

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

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

gains of business/profession of the assessee. The acceptance of case of assessee would facilitate deductions under 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