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

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

3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions of Section 153C of the I.T. Act. Placing

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions of Section 153C of the I.T. Act. Placing

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.

3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions of Section 153C of the I.T. Act. Placing

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

7. We have taken note of the rival contentions and perused the record. 7.1 The question of law framed deals with the claim of the assessee to set off the loss suffered by the assessee from the sale of long term capital assets i.e., shares against the income earned from the sale of a long term capital asset. Section

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

3. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the assessee preferred this appeal, which was admitted on six questions of law: However after hearing the Counsel, we reframe the questions of law into a single question as follows: whether an unregistered agreement for joint development of a property could be deemed to be a contract 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

3. The assessee assails the order dated 21.11.2014 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal) Cochin Bench in IT(TP)A No.02/Coch/2014. The issues canvassed in the appeal relate to the return filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2009-10. Substantial question nos. (a) and (b) read as follows: I.T.A. No. 249/2015 -3- “a) Whether

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 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

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

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that "the mistake alleged to be rectified under section 154 is not an apparent mistake on the face of the record and it was a debatable issue and are not the finding wrong, perverse, if the issue

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

3. In the return filed for the AY 1995-96, assessee had thus written back only Rs.30,68,152/- under Section 41(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer found that the entire amount of Rs.53,71,650/- I.T.R. No.70/2000 -:4:- ought to be treated as a deemed profit under Section 41(1)(a) of the Act and that

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

3. The subject matter of the appeal relates to disputes arising from the return filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 17.04.2018 has filed the instant appeal. The controversy relates to the claim of assessee to treat the asset sold by the assessee in the subject

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

7 'the Act'). The revenue for the assessment year 2010-2011 denied the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act. The assessee has an area of operation in more than one Taluk. Section 80P(4) was amended and read as follows: [(4). The provisions of this Section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than

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

7 'the Act'). The revenue for the assessment year 2010-2011 denied the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act. The assessee has an area of operation in more than one Taluk. Section 80P(4) was amended and read as follows: [(4). The provisions of this Section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than

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

7 'the Act'). The revenue for the assessment year 2010-2011 denied the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act. The assessee has an area of operation in more than one Taluk. Section 80P(4) was amended and read as follows: [(4). The provisions of this Section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than

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

3 (1999) 5 SCC 189 ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -15- Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta4; Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal5; and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City I, Bombay v. National Storage Pvt. Ltd., Bombay6 . 6. Mr.Jose Joseph argues that whether the income received by the assessee is by exploiting

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

3 (1999) 5 SCC 189 ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -15- Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta4; Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal5; and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City I, Bombay v. National Storage Pvt. Ltd., Bombay6 . 6. Mr.Jose Joseph argues that whether the income received by the assessee is by exploiting

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

7. Substantial Question Nos. 1 and 2 refer to the controversy in reopening the assessment and whether the circumstances now stated by the AO come within jurisdiction of AO for reopening the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Substantial Question Nos.3 to 5 relate to whether the lease rental received by the assessee for the subject assessment