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

depreciation claimed by the assessee was rejected. Substantially, the dispute between the assessee and the Revenue centres around Section 43(1) r/w Explanation and proviso of the Act. Appeals filed by the assessee for the above assessment years before the Commissioner of Income Tax (for short, ‘the CIT(A)’) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) were

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 under Section 40(3)(i) of the Act. The abstract application of the reported judgments in Sakthi Sugars and Priya Village Roadshows Ltd cases resulted in an unacceptable finding, particularly, in the available circumstances of the case. He prays for setting aside the allowance granted by the Tribunal. 5

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

5. The following substantial questions of law are raised for consideration: 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the disallowance of service tax payable under Section 43B, particularly when the same was not charged to the Profit and Loss Account or claimed as a deduction in the computation

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

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:

depreciation on this expenditure. The asessee is directed to provide requisite details. This ground stand partly allowed.” 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would point out that the Appellate Tribunal merely went by the Explanation-1 to Section

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act as it stood at the relevant time, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the carry forward and set off of the unabsorbed depreciation and is not the same against law and the intendment of the legislature? 5

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

Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act as it stood at the relevant time, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the carry forward and set off of the unabsorbed depreciation and is not the same against law and the intendment of the legislature? 5

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 80HHC for an amount of Rs.65,20,772/-. The second substantial question of law refers to whether the percentage of depreciation accepted by the CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal at 40% is correct or not. 5

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

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

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

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

5. Assessee claimed that the loan advanced by it to the subsidiary was on consideration of business expediency and that was the reason for the loss of Rs.5.09 crores for the AY 2006-07. Therefore, it claimed deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. However, the assessing officer disallowed the loss. It was held that the expenditure incurred

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. 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 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