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.

2. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties 1 to 3

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

2. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties 1 to 3

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

2. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties 1 to 3

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

2. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties 1 to 3

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

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

2. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties 1 to 3

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(1). 2 (2022) 2 SCC 603 3(MANU/MH/1197/2019) ITA Nos.62&65/2018 16 9. Without prejudice to the main argument of applicability of Explanation and proviso to 43(1) of the Act, it is alternatively argued that orders impugned in the appeal are illegal and computation of written down value on a broad spectrum of all the assets

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

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

depreciation of previous years. The AO processed the return under Section 143(1) on 25.3.2002. The assessment was re-opened under Section 148 and assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 was ITA No.1256 of 2009 3 completed on 16.12.2004 determining the total income of Rs.1,88,38,380/-. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT (Appeals

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

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the investments made by the assessee in approved government securities form part of its stock in trade and therefore, the claim of depreciation on the revaluation of the securities was rightly claimed by the assessee? 3. Whether, on the facts

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 40(3

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

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

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of bad debts and bad and doubtful debts is an allowable deduction? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of depreciation on government securities is an allowable deduction?” I.T.A. No.1439/2009 -4- 3. The first and the second questions

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

2 Civil Appeal No.6901/2012, arising out of SLP(C) No.22881/2011 3 [2012] 340 ITR 593 (SC) I.T.A. No.49/2009 -5- Ajanta Pharma Ltd If the dichotomy between "eligibility of profit and "deductibility" of profit is not kept in mind then section 115JB will cease to be a self-contained code. In section 115JB, as in section 115JA, it has been clearly

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

APOLLO TYRES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2)(ia) of the Act. The issue now turns us to the entitlement of weighted deduction at 150% under Section 35(2AB). The assessee, on 12.11.2008, applied to the competent authority for approval. The DSIR, vide letter ITA Nos.225 & 238/2019 -6- dated 17.06.2009, granted approval for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2010 by incorporating the following condition: “The above Research

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

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

2)(ia) of the Act. The issue now turns us to the entitlement of weighted deduction at 150% under Section 35(2AB). The assessee, on 12.11.2008, applied to the competent authority for approval. The DSIR, vide letter ITA Nos.225 & 238/2019 -6- dated 17.06.2009, granted approval for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2010 by incorporating the following condition: “The above Research

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

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

3. The appeal deals with the controversy on availing 50% of depreciation unavailed under Section 32(1)(iia) in the previous year ending on 31.03.2008, whether could be allowed I.T.A. No.138/2014 -3- in the subsequent year or not. Substantial questions raised read as follows: “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation