THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

section 48 of the Income Tax Act, therefore, capital gains earned by the assessee, if any, was not exigible to tax. The Department's Appeal to the High Court was dismissed and that is how it approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In dealing with the rival contentions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: '(8

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.

section 48 of the Income Tax Act, therefore, capital gains earned by the assessee, if any, was not exigible to tax. The Department's Appeal to the High Court was dismissed and that is how it approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In dealing with the rival contentions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: '(8

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

section 48 of the Income Tax Act, therefore, capital gains earned by the assessee, if any, was not exigible to tax. The Department's Appeal to the High Court was dismissed and that is how it approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In dealing with the rival contentions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: '(8

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 is satisfied by the assessee. We are of the view that the application of Section 70(3) by the assessee is incorrect and illegal. The Assessing Officer has very clearly appreciated the objection, applied the law to the circumstances of the case, and recorded the findings. As we have noted supra the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have

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

gains under section 45 of the Act arises only when there is a transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year. The word 'transfer' is defined in section 2(47) of the Act as encompassing six different types of transactions. The relevant transaction for the present case referred to in the said definition provision is the fifth clause

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

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

8. Substantial question no.(d) reads as follows: I.T.A. No. 249/2015 -13- “d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision of Special Bench in appellant's own case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interest component in the foreign exchange gain was a revenue receipt

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

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.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

8 `primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank' as a Society having its area of operation confined to 'a taluk`, the usage of the article `a' before the word `taluk' is not to be understood to indicate a single taluk for the following reasons: (1) Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act provides as under: 13(2): Gender

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

8 `primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank' as a Society having its area of operation confined to 'a taluk`, the usage of the article `a' before the word `taluk' is not to be understood to indicate a single taluk for the following reasons: (1) Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act provides as under: 13(2): Gender

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

8 `primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank' as a Society having its area of operation confined to 'a taluk`, the usage of the article `a' before the word `taluk' is not to be understood to indicate a single taluk for the following reasons: (1) Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act provides as under: 13(2): Gender

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

8:- 12. A glance at the history of Section 41 will reveal the purpose behind the enactment of this provision. Section 41(1) of the 1961 Act corresponds to Section 10(2)(A) of the Income Tax Act of 1922. In the decision in British Mexican Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Jackson (1932) 16 TC 570 (HL), it was held 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

8. These grounds were raised by the assessee before the ITA NO. 47 OF 2018 -4- CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) omitted to consider these grounds while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee. Hence, these two grounds are remitted to the file of the CIT(A) to give a finding on this issue. Thus Ground No. 2 and Ground

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

capital gain, the entire I.T.A. No.485/2009 -12- claim of Rs.30 lakhs cannot be allowed in an order purported to be a rectification order on the ground that it is 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 the opinion that

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

8:- and Others v. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Others [(2003) 263 ITR 706:[(2004) 10 SCC 1] in support of his contentions. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the Department, on the other hand, submitted that the loss incurred by the assessee was on account of the loan availed for purchasing a capital asset in South Africa through the subsidiary

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

8. Juxtaposing the narrative with our consideration of the issue, we notice that in Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery (P.) Ltd case, the Division Bench for ascertaining a category of income, laid substantial emphasis on the relatability of income to a ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -20- particular source. The source of income is from a commercial asset; without reference

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

8. Juxtaposing the narrative with our consideration of the issue, we notice that in Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery (P.) Ltd case, the Division Bench for ascertaining a category of income, laid substantial emphasis on the relatability of income to a ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -20- particular source. The source of income is from a commercial asset; without reference