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. 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. 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

M/S. KINFRA EXPORT PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARKS LTD., vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)

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

Section 43 of the Act, in the respective assessment years detailing that the grant is a capital reserve and proportionately reduced the grant received from the written down value of fixed assets. The effect thereof, in computation, is that the depreciation claimed by the assessee has been found to be incorrect and the depreciation claimed has been disallowed

THE COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX vs. P T L ENTERPRISES LTD.

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

Section 115JA and levy MAT on assessee in accordance with law. 2. The assessee on 30.11.2000 filed return for the assessment year 2000-01 declaring total income as 'Nil'. The assessee, for arriving at 'nil' income, has set off brought forward business loss and unabsored depreciation

MALANKARA PLANTATIONS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The Subject Matter Of Appeal Relates To Assessment Year 2011-12 & The Controversies Relate To The Allowance Claimed By The Assessee Towards The Replantation Of Rubber Plants In An Area Where Rubber Trees

Section 24 of the IT Act? 3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in refusing to consider the additional ground relating to exemption of subsidy received from Tea Board in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 229 ITR 383? 4) Whether, on the facts

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). The following substantial questions of law are raised by the revenue: “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision in British Paints (188 ITR 44) should not the Tribunal have sustained the disallowance of depreciation made

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 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

2 (2011) 332 ITR 594 (Del) ITA No.44/2017 -9- revenue expenditure even by a liberal approach or going by the accountancy standards followed by the assessee. The assessee has capitalized the expenditure, and the permissible deduction in such circumstances is only by way of depreciation under 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

2. M/s.Apollo Tyres Ltd., Kochi/Assessee is the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue is the respondent. The subject appeal is at the instance of Assessee from the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal') Cochin Bench in ITA No.430/Coch/2006 dated 24.08.2012. The substantial questions stated in the instant tax appeal relate to the Assessment Year

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN. vs. M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD., KALAMASSERRY

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

depreciation relating to the assessment years 1979-80 to 1995-96 can be set off against the income of the assessment years 1998-99 and 2001-02? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

depreciation relating to the assessment years 1979-80 to 1995-96 can be set off against the income of the assessment years 1998-99 and 2001-02? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Section

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

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

2(14) is not a word of art but a word of commercial implication. The bottom line is the availability of assets, activities carried out for exploiting the assets and that the assessee is not a mere onlooker in the activities of the company or a passive recipient of rent for utilization of facilities. 18. Applying the above ratio

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

2(14) is not a word of art but a word of commercial implication. The bottom line is the availability of assets, activities carried out for exploiting the assets and that the assessee is not a mere onlooker in the activities of the company or a passive recipient of rent for utilization of facilities. 18. Applying the above ratio

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

2(14) is not a word of art but a word of commercial implication. The bottom line is the availability of assets, activities carried out for exploiting the assets and that the assessee is not a mere onlooker in the activities of the company or a passive recipient of rent for utilization of facilities. 18. Applying the above ratio