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. 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

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. 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

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. 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

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

6. Mr Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Department, contends that computation of the total income is dealt with by Section 14 of the Act and Section 14 classifies income under five heads, namely (i) salaries, (ii) income from house property, (iii) income from business profession (iv) income from capital gains

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

6:- Registration Act, 1908 were amended, apart from section 53A of the TP Act. By virtue of the amendments, a document, contemplated under section 53A of the TP Act will not have any effect for the purpose of the said section, unless the same is registered. Of course, an exception could be discerned from the proviso to section

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 is per se illegal. He relies on the judgments reported in Ms Srinivasa Naicker v. Income Tax Officer6; and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4, Chennai v. M/s. Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd7 for the proposition that the judgment relied on by the Revenue is considered by the Madras High Court and it has been finally held that

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

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. A mere provision of expenditure is not allowable as expenditure inasmuch as the assessee has not suffered actual expenditure on account of the said commission payable to the agents. The conclusion and reasoning of the Assessing Officer was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal independently examined the tenability

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

6:- 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the department, on the other hand, submitted that the amount contemplated under Section 41(1) (a) is inclusive of the tax since income tax is always levied on the amount received without deducting the tax. He further submitted that Section 41(1) is a deeming provision, which makes the amount, as contemplated under

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

Section 6, the fact that it may indirectly be covered by another head will not make the income taxable under the latter head. Referring to Commercial Properties Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax9, it is also held that merely because the owner of the property was a company incorporated with the object of owning property, the incidence of income derived

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

Section 6, the fact that it may indirectly be covered by another head will not make the income taxable under the latter head. Referring to Commercial Properties Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax9, it is also held that merely because the owner of the property was a company incorporated with the object of owning property, the incidence of income derived

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

6. The Assessing Officer, through an order dated 29.09.2015 (Annexure-A), has recorded the following finding: 14. In response, CA, Abraham K Thomas, authorised representative of the assesssee, has contended as follows: ``The amendment made to section 80P by insertion of sub-section (4) w.e.f. 01-04-2007 does not take away the applicability of the section to agricultural

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

6. The Assessing Officer, through an order dated 29.09.2015 (Annexure-A), has recorded the following finding: 14. In response, CA, Abraham K Thomas, authorised representative of the assesssee, has contended as follows: ``The amendment made to section 80P by insertion of sub-section (4) w.e.f. 01-04-2007 does not take away the applicability of the section to agricultural

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

6. The Assessing Officer, through an order dated 29.09.2015 (Annexure-A), has recorded the following finding: 14. In response, CA, Abraham K Thomas, authorised representative of the assesssee, has contended as follows: ``The amendment made to section 80P by insertion of sub-section (4) w.e.f. 01-04-2007 does not take away the applicability of the section to agricultural

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

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 of Section 14, for the relevant assessment year, there

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

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

6. Learned Advocate Mr. Mohan Pulickkal objects to consideration of any of the reasons stated in the notice issued under Section 154 of the Act to appreciate whether the mistake pointed out by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is a mistake, as a matter of fact or not. According to him, the jurisdiction under Section 154 ought

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

section 260A of the Act. 6. We heard Senior Advocate Joseph Markose instructed by Adv. Sharad Joseph Kodianthara, on behalf of the I.T.A. No.272/13 -:6:- assessee and the Adv. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the Department. 7. Appellant had entered into the foreign exchange forward contract with Citi Bank in January 2006. The purpose for which the loan

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