BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

depreciation carried forward, is the contention.” ITA No.15 of 2021 -18- 10. Section 115BBE is inserted by Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1.4.2013. Through Finance Act 2016, an amendment to sub-section 2 of Section 115BBE was carried out. The section reads as follows: “After section 115BBD of the Income-tax Act, the following section shall be inserted with

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 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

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 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

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 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

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 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

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

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

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRICHUR vs. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD.,TRICHUR

Appeal stands dismissed

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

depreciation on government securities is an allowable deduction?” I.T.A. No.1439/2009 -4- 3. The first and the second questions are regarding the eligible deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The counsel appearing for parties state that the question concerning bad debts and provision for bad debts falling under Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) is covered

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRICHUR vs. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,TRICHUR.

Appeal stands dismissed

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

depreciation on the revaluation of the securities was rightly claimed by the assessee? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and since the assessee was regularly following the method of I.T.A. No.178/2009 -4- valuation of government securities on book value is it permissible for the assessee to change the method of accounting and revalue the same adopting

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KITEX GARMENTS LTD.

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

depreciation has to be allowed in the subsequent year" and is not the above finding against law and perverse? 2. Whether, on the Tribunal is right in law in holding that "the second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) is to mean that 10

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, vs. M/S.APPOLLO TYRES LTD.,

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

depreciation has to be allowed in the subsequent year" and is not the above finding against law and perverse? 2. Whether, on the Tribunal is right in law in holding that "the second proviso to section 32(1)(ii) is to mean that 10

HOTEL ALLIED TRADES PVT. LTD vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, we dismiss the IT Appeal by answering the

Bench: Us, The Appellant Raises The Following Questions Of Law:

depreciation would be allowed thereon. He takes us to the judgment dated 17.06.2016 of a Full Bench of this Court in Indus Motors Co.P.vt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commission of Income Tax [(2016) 382 ITR 503 (Ker)]:(ITA No.14 of 2015) to point out that the provisions of Explanation-1 to Section 32(1) could not be mechanically applied

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

1 (2019) 419 ITR 100 I.T.A. No.26/2013 -14- findings of fact recorded, the question is answered in favour of the Revenue, against the assessee. 9. Substantial question no.3 relates to disallowance of part depreciation claimed by the assessee of Gurgaon building aggregating to Rs.25,27,505/- in relation to the let out portion to Appolo International Ltd. The assessee challenges

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

1) of the Act. However, the assessing officer disallowed the loss. It was held that the expenditure incurred by the subsidiary company for its business was not allowable in the hands of the holding company as the subsidiary company was a separate legal entity and also that the expenditure incurred for acquisition of a capital asset was a capital expenditure

M/S. KUNNEL ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS (P) LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed and remanded with the observations as

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

1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the disallowance of service tax payable under Section 43B, particularly when the same was not charged to the Profit and Loss Account or claimed as a deduction in the computation of income? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

APOLLO TYRES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1), it must also enter into an agreement with the prescribed authority for co-operation in such research and development facility and for audit of accounts maintained for that facility. This is specifically stipulated in Clause (3) of Section 35(2AB) of the said Act. We find that the agreement was entered into only on 21.08.2008 when the petitioner made

APOLLO TYRES LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

1), it must also enter into an agreement with the prescribed authority for co-operation in such research and development facility and for audit of accounts maintained for that facility. This is specifically stipulated in Clause (3) of Section 35(2AB) of the said Act. We find that the agreement was entered into only on 21.08.2008 when the petitioner made

M/S PTL ENTERPRISES LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

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

1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact

M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. (FORMERLY PREMIER TYRES LTD) vs. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),RANGE-2, ERNAKULAM

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

1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact