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 32 of the Act, the actual cost of assets alone will have to be determined, and in a broad spectrum, the subsidy is deducted even in respect of the assets which did not have value addition from or through the financial assistance received under ASIDE then the very purpose of depreciation of an asset is defeated/undermined. The extent

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

Section 80 HHC for an amount of Rs.65,20,772/-? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of reasoning contained in 265 ITR 114 (Bom) the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation at 40% on commercial vehicles used for assessee's own business?” 4

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

Section 43(1) of the Act. ITA No.44/2017 -8- Thereafter available depreciation could be claimed by adding the expenditure to the capital expenditure. In other words, the assessee, according to Revenue, is entitled to claim depreciation on the capitalized value of the new plant but cannot be allowed to book expenses towards preoperative expenditure incurred by the assessee for establishing

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

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 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

USHA JOHNSON vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

4. The rate of depreciation admissible for the above vehicles is 30%. The counsel for the appellant placed before us Circular No.652 dated 14.6.1993, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to all Chief Commissioners of Income tax and all Directors General of Income tax, which has been extracted in Annexure G order also, clarifying that higher depreciation will

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 in the subsequent year. 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to and relies on the judgments in Commissioner of Income- tax, Madurai v. T P Textiles (P) Ltd.1 and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Rittal India (P) Ltd2 for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made

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 in the subsequent year. 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to and relies on the judgments in Commissioner of Income- tax, Madurai v. T P Textiles (P) Ltd.1 and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Rittal India (P) Ltd2 for sustaining the view taken by the Tribunal. It is also argued that the clarificatory amendment made

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,COCHIN. vs. M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD., KALAMASSERRY

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

4. Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of assessee for set off of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment years 1998-1999 and 2001-02. The assessee filed appeals against the order in Annexure A dated 31.1.2005 before the CIT (Appeals) and CIT (Appeals) through order in Annexure-B dated 16.8.2005 allowed the appeal of assessee and directed AO to allow carry

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

4. Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of assessee for set off of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment years 1998-1999 and 2001-02. The assessee filed appeals against the order in Annexure A dated 31.1.2005 before the CIT (Appeals) and CIT (Appeals) through order in Annexure-B dated 16.8.2005 allowed the appeal of assessee and directed AO to allow carry

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

Section 43B is found to be applicable with respect to the service tax liability remaining unpaid as on the due date of filing return, then should not the Appellant be allowed a deduction of the same in the appropriate year of payment? 4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right

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:

4 claim these expenses as revenue expenses for the assessment year in question. The alternate claim of the appellant/assessee to permit them to claim depreciation to the prescribed extent in respect of the said expenditure incurred by them was however allowed by the said authorities. In the further appeal carried by the appellant before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

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, KOCHI -I vs. M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD

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

depreciation brought forward from immediately preceding assessment year has to be allowed in the subsequent assessment year and is nto the above finding against law and perverse? 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case is the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in allowing the assessee's claim of weighted deduction under Section