M/S. NILESHWAR RANGEKALLU CHETHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI SAHAKARANA SANGHAM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

disallowed on the ground that the claim for deduction had not been made in a valid return filed by the appellant in terms of the IT Act. It was the stand of the Assessing Officer that in view of the provisions of Section 80A(5) of the IT Act, the claim for deduction could not be considered

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

1 Disallowance of claim of preoperative expenditure disallowed in the assessment made u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C dt. 18/02/2015 was directed to be deleted : 26,97,79,538 2 Claim of preoperative expenditure disallowed in the assessment made u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C dt. 18/02/2015 was directed to be deleted : 4,70,07,847 3 Disallowance of claim of additional

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

Section 36(1)(vii) cannot be the claim of the assessee for bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii), and the claim in the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) be disallowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR vs. M/S.DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,TRICHUR

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee under Section 36(1)(viia). Similarly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of payment

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI 2 vs. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

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

disallowed the claim u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act? 3. Substantial Question No.1 relates to the claim of deduction at 7.5% of the total income as allowance under the first limb of Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TVM vs. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TVM

Appeal stands dismissed

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee under I.T.A. No.118/2009 -3- Section 36(1)(viia). The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee under Section 36(1)(viia). Similarly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the revaluation of unquoted

M/S. JOYALUKKAS INDIA LTD, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial questions

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

disallowance of an amount of Rs.92,28,405/- under proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The second

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the order of ITA No.15 of 2021 -3- the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and in the facts of the case in not considering the aspect

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

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

Section 36(1)(vii) cannot be the claim of the assessee for bad debts u/s. 36(1) (vii), and the claim in the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) be disallowed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DHANALAXMI BANK LTD

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

disallowing an amount of Rs.1,80,04,849/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, the said order was set aside by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur, by an order dated 18.12.2018 finding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In the order of the Principal Commissioner, it was noticed that

M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1) of Section 43B and therefore the disallowance of deduction of agricultural income tax paid under Act 1991 is illegal

M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1) of Section 43B and therefore the disallowance of deduction of agricultural income tax paid under Act 1991 is illegal

M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1) of Section 43B and therefore the disallowance of deduction of agricultural income tax paid under Act 1991 is illegal

M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1) of Section 43B and therefore the disallowance of deduction of agricultural income tax paid under Act 1991 is illegal

M/S OIL PALM INDIA LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1) of Section 43B and therefore the disallowance of deduction of agricultural income tax paid under Act 1991 is illegal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.

The appeal is allowed in part, answering question no

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

disallowing payment of pension is incorrect and having regard to the actual payment of pension which is not doubted in any manner, allowed the claim of assessee. We have taken note of the reasoning in the orders of CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal and are of the view that the substantial question does not merit requirements of Section 260A

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:

1) held that capital expenditure incurred on a leased building was to be capitalized and depreciation would be allowed. Therefore, the amount of Rs.101.87 lakhs was disallowed. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same but directed the LD. AO to allow depreciation on capital component of expenditure. Aggrieved the assesee is in further appeal before us. 6.2. From the facts