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.

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

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

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

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

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

9. While considering the above controversy, it is necessary to refer to Section 41(1)(a) of the Act, which is extracted below: “41. Profits chargeable to tax.- (1) Where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee (hereinafter referred

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

9 (2013) 33 taxmann.com 575 (Cochin-Trib.) ITA No.44/2017 -23- clarify that both the above judgments allow deduction under section 37 of the 1961 Act and not under section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act. In this case, the Tribunal has allowed the claim under section 37 and not only section 36(1)(iii), hence there is no infirmity

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

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

9. Senior Advocate Mr Joseph Markos, to enable the Court to appreciate the intricacy involved in the substantial question raised by the assessee, has prefaced his submission by inviting our attention to paragraph 31 of the Tribunal’s order, which reads thus: “31. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. In our opinion, gain earned from cancellation

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

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

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

1] words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females; and [2] words in singular shall include the plural, and vice-versa'. In the instant case, there is nothing in the Section to suggest that the definition restricts the applicability of section 80P only to agricultural and rural development banks having its area of operation in a single

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

1] words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females; and [2] words in singular shall include the plural, and vice-versa'. In the instant case, there is nothing in the Section to suggest that the definition restricts the applicability of section 80P only to agricultural and rural development banks having its area of operation in a single

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

1] words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females; and [2] words in singular shall include the plural, and vice-versa'. In the instant case, there is nothing in the Section to suggest that the definition restricts the applicability of section 80P only to agricultural and rural development banks having its area of operation in a single

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

gains from business or property. The Calcutta High Court affirmed the 9 (1928) ILR 55 Cal 1057 ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -23- question "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums received as salami by the assessee for granting sub-leases were trading receipts in its hands and the amount of profit therein

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

gains from business or property. The Calcutta High Court affirmed the 9 (1928) ILR 55 Cal 1057 ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -23- question "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums received as salami by the assessee for granting sub-leases were trading receipts in its hands and the amount of profit therein

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

9:- S. 37 General; (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

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 years, constitutes income from

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

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 years, constitutes income from

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

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

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 years, constitutes income from