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

depreciation; the question is whether the claim of the assessee conforms the deduction permissible under Section 37(1) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the preoperative expenses amounting to Rs.26,97,79,538/- incurred by the assessee are revenue expenses, and are correctly so held by the Tribunal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KITEX GARMENTS LTD., KIZHAKKAMBALAM

The appeal stands dismissed accordingly

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

depreciation accepted by the CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal at 40% is correct or not. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have invited the attention of this Court to the reported judgments in Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax1, order of the Supreme Court in Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax2 and Commissioner

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.

depreciation) was Rs.24,38,23,931.53 and this amount was inclusive of Rs. 14,54,59,169/- given to the erstwhile trustees who constructed the buildings for the Trust which clearly showed that there had been no overstatement of building value and the amount paid was for the buildings constructed by them. Thus, there was no violation of section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

depreciation) was Rs.24,38,23,931.53 and this amount was inclusive of Rs. 14,54,59,169/- given to the erstwhile trustees who constructed the buildings for the Trust which clearly showed that there had been no overstatement of building value and the amount paid was for the buildings constructed by them. Thus, there was no violation of section

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

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

depreciation) was Rs.24,38,23,931.53 and this amount was inclusive of Rs. 14,54,59,169/- given to the erstwhile trustees who constructed the buildings for the Trust which clearly showed that there had been no overstatement of building value and the amount paid was for the buildings constructed by them. Thus, there was no violation of section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

depreciation) was Rs.24,38,23,931.53 and this amount was inclusive of Rs. 14,54,59,169/- given to the erstwhile trustees who constructed the buildings for the Trust which clearly showed that there had been no overstatement of building value and the amount paid was for the buildings constructed by them. Thus, there was no violation of section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

depreciation) was Rs.24,38,23,931.53 and this amount was inclusive of Rs. 14,54,59,169/- given to the erstwhile trustees who constructed the buildings for the Trust which clearly showed that there had been no overstatement of building value and the amount paid was for the buildings constructed by them. Thus, there was no violation of section

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

M/S.ESCAPADE RESORTS PVT.LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part as indicated above

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii (For Short, ‘Cit(Appeals)’) & Through Annexure-C Order Dated 02.12.2013, The Appeal Was Allowed In Part. The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (For Short, 'The Tribunal') & Through The Order Impugned In The Appeal

depreciation @15% is granted on it. The resultant disallowance comes to Rs. 2,72,05,544 [3,20,06,522- 48,00,978)” The CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal confirmed the said finding. 5. Mr. Joseph Markose referring to the principle laid down by this Court in Joy Alukkas India vs. ACIT1, Indus Motos Co. P.Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner

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

11. Time and again, courts have been confronted with whether the lease of plant and machinery of a business would amount to ‘business income’ or whether it would fall under the head ‘income from other sources’. One of the earliest cases that dealt with the issue under consideration was The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City v. Shri Lakshmi

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

11. Time and again, courts have been confronted with whether the lease of plant and machinery of a business would amount to ‘business income’ or whether it would fall under the head ‘income from other sources’. One of the earliest cases that dealt with the issue under consideration was The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City v. Shri Lakshmi

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

11. Time and again, courts have been confronted with whether the lease of plant and machinery of a business would amount to ‘business income’ or whether it would fall under the head ‘income from other sources’. One of the earliest cases that dealt with the issue under consideration was The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City v. Shri Lakshmi

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TX

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

11. Time and again, courts have been confronted with whether the lease of plant and machinery of a business would amount to ‘business income’ or whether it would fall under the head ‘income from other sources’. One of the earliest cases that dealt with the issue under consideration was The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City v. Shri Lakshmi

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

11. Time and again, courts have been confronted with whether the lease of plant and machinery of a business would amount to ‘business income’ or whether it would fall under the head ‘income from other sources’. One of the earliest cases that dealt with the issue under consideration was The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City v. Shri Lakshmi

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

11. Time and again, courts have been confronted with whether the lease of plant and machinery of a business would amount to ‘business income’ or whether it would fall under the head ‘income from other sources’. One of the earliest cases that dealt with the issue under consideration was The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City v. Shri Lakshmi

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

Sections 28 to 44 of the Act irrespective of doing business. He prays for answering substantial question Nos. 3 to 5 in favour of revenue and against the assessee. 10. Senior Adv.Mr.Joseph Markose argues that the assessee moved BIFR in 1987 and the case of assessee has been taken up for enquiry in 1991, BIFR found that the assessee could

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

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

Sections 28 to 44 of the Act irrespective of doing business. He prays for answering substantial question Nos. 3 to 5 in favour of revenue and against the assessee. 10. Senior Adv.Mr.Joseph Markose argues that the assessee moved BIFR in 1987 and the case of assessee has been taken up for enquiry in 1991, BIFR found that the assessee could

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

Sections 28 to 44 of the Act irrespective of doing business. He prays for answering substantial question Nos. 3 to 5 in favour of revenue and against the assessee. 10. Senior Adv.Mr.Joseph Markose argues that the assessee moved BIFR in 1987 and the case of assessee has been taken up for enquiry in 1991, BIFR found that the assessee could