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.

15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. Therefore, if the income is included under any one of the heads

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. Therefore, if the income is included under any one of the heads

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. Therefore, if the income is included under any one of the heads

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. Therefore, if the income is included under any one of the heads

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

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

15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. Therefore, if the income is included under any one of the heads

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

15. The decisions relied on by the parties are either prior to ITA Nos.62&65/2018 28 1.4.1999, or the decisions have not considered Explanation 10 as a stand-alone provision or interpreted Explanation 10 and the proviso to Section 43(1) of the Act. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the parties commended to us construction of the Explanation

USHA JOHNSON vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, revised the assessments as per Annexure B order dated 28.1.2011, on the ground that they are prejudicial to the revenue. According to the Commissioner, depreciation was allowable only at the rate of 15% and not 30%. The assessee challenged the order in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order Annexure E dated

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

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

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

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

15. Yet another material circumstance is that ATL had infused substantial amounts for the plant and machinery to the tune of around Rs.80 Crores. In spite of infusion of such a large amount by ATL, they continued to pay rental income to the assessee. 16. In the above situation, the intention has to be gathered as to whether the assessee

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

15. Yet another material circumstance is that ATL had infused substantial amounts for the plant and machinery to the tune of around Rs.80 Crores. In spite of infusion of such a large amount by ATL, they continued to pay rental income to the assessee. 16. In the above situation, the intention has to be gathered as to whether the assessee

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

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

15. Yet another material circumstance is that ATL had infused substantial amounts for the plant and machinery to the tune of around Rs.80 Crores. In spite of infusion of such a large amount by ATL, they continued to pay rental income to the assessee. 16. In the above situation, the intention has to be gathered as to whether the assessee

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

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

15. Yet another material circumstance is that ATL had infused substantial amounts for the plant and machinery to the tune of around Rs.80 Crores. In spite of infusion of such a large amount by ATL, they continued to pay rental income to the assessee. 16. In the above situation, the intention has to be gathered as to whether the assessee

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

15. Yet another material circumstance is that ATL had infused substantial amounts for the plant and machinery to the tune of around Rs.80 Crores. In spite of infusion of such a large amount by ATL, they continued to pay rental income to the assessee. 16. In the above situation, the intention has to be gathered as to whether the assessee

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

15. Yet another material circumstance is that ATL had infused substantial amounts for the plant and machinery to the tune of around Rs.80 Crores. In spite of infusion of such a large amount by ATL, they continued to pay rental income to the assessee. 16. In the above situation, the intention has to be gathered as to whether the assessee

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

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. The assessee is a company engaged in manufacture and sale of automobile tyres and tubes. For the I.T.A. No.272/13 -:3:- assessment year 2006-07, the assessing officer computed the total income of the asessee at Rs.66,15,44,477/-. While computing the total income of the assessee, an amount of Rs.5,09,01,000/- claimed as a deduction