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

USHA JOHNSON vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

depreciation at the rate of 40% as against 30% admissible. The Commissioner of Income Tax, in exercise of powers 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

40,068/-, remained with the assessee. Therefore, the claim of total amount spent as revenue expenditure cannot be accepted, but was treated as capital expenditure and thereon granted depreciation on the amount claimed by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), on appeal by the assessee, in Annexure-A2 order allowed the total claim of assessee as revenue expenditure

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

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

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

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

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

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

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

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

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

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

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

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

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

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

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

section 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

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. 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