TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

12 and in the case of income from the furniture and fixtures to those mentioned in sub-section (3) and cannot assess the income under Section 9 or Section 10. 8.6 Next in point of time is Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery (P.) Ltd case. As narrated above, the Division Bench laid down, after referring to a few judgements referred

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

10(1) of the Income Tax Act. When agricultural income itself is exempt from the purview of Central Income Tax, there is no reason why a payment made out of agricultural income (already exempt) should be allowed as a deduction in computing the business income under the Central Income-Tax Act. Section 43B states that "a deduction otherwise allowable under

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

10(1) of the Income Tax Act. When agricultural income itself is exempt from the purview of Central Income Tax, there is no reason why a payment made out of agricultural income (already exempt) should be allowed as a deduction in computing the business income under the Central Income-Tax Act. Section 43B states that "a deduction otherwise allowable under

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

10(1) of the Income Tax Act. When agricultural income itself is exempt from the purview of Central Income Tax, there is no reason why a payment made out of agricultural income (already exempt) should be allowed as a deduction in computing the business income under the Central Income-Tax Act. Section 43B states that "a deduction otherwise allowable under

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

10(1) of the Income Tax Act. When agricultural income itself is exempt from the purview of Central Income Tax, there is no reason why a payment made out of agricultural income (already exempt) should be allowed as a deduction in computing the business income under the Central Income-Tax Act. Section 43B states that "a deduction otherwise allowable under

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

10(1) of the Income Tax Act. When agricultural income itself is exempt from the purview of Central Income Tax, there is no reason why a payment made out of agricultural income (already exempt) should be allowed as a deduction in computing the business income under the Central Income-Tax Act. Section 43B states that "a deduction otherwise allowable under

SUDARSANAN P.S vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

10. It is relevant to note that the obligation to deduct tax for payments made to an individual under Section 194C, beyond the monetary limit was brought into effect only from 01.06.2007. As rightly contended by Adv.Arun Raj Sub clause (k) of Section 194C was brought into effect by the Finance Act, 2007. Though Section 2 of the Finance

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.

10 I.T.A.No.6/2021 M/s.Carmel Educational Trust 2010-11 I.T.A.No.310/2019 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows: The Carmel Educational Trust, Adoor was constituted by a registered trust deed dated 14.08.2001. It is engaged in running educational institutions imparting education in the subjects of Engineering and Management. The 12 trustees of the Trust belong

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

10 I.T.A.No.6/2021 M/s.Carmel Educational Trust 2010-11 I.T.A.No.310/2019 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows: The Carmel Educational Trust, Adoor was constituted by a registered trust deed dated 14.08.2001. It is engaged in running educational institutions imparting education in the subjects of Engineering and Management. The 12 trustees of the Trust belong

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

10 I.T.A.No.6/2021 M/s.Carmel Educational Trust 2010-11 I.T.A.No.310/2019 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows: The Carmel Educational Trust, Adoor was constituted by a registered trust deed dated 14.08.2001. It is engaged in running educational institutions imparting education in the subjects of Engineering and Management. The 12 trustees of the Trust belong

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

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

10 I.T.A.No.6/2021 M/s.Carmel Educational Trust 2010-11 I.T.A.No.310/2019 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows: The Carmel Educational Trust, Adoor was constituted by a registered trust deed dated 14.08.2001. It is engaged in running educational institutions imparting education in the subjects of Engineering and Management. The 12 trustees of the Trust belong

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

10 I.T.A.No.6/2021 M/s.Carmel Educational Trust 2010-11 I.T.A.No.310/2019 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows: The Carmel Educational Trust, Adoor was constituted by a registered trust deed dated 14.08.2001. It is engaged in running educational institutions imparting education in the subjects of Engineering and Management. The 12 trustees of the Trust belong

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

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

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source u/s.194H/194G of the Income Tax Act from the payment of commission to sub- agents? 3. Should not the Tribunal have considered the issues raised (declined to be considered in paragraph 12 of the order on merits?” 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties have, in great

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

10. The circumstances relating to substantial question No.3 are that the assessee under Section 35(2AB) claimed weighted deduction amounting to Rs.5,79,01,415/-. The assessee could establish before the ITAT that it is entitled to claim the expenses, salaries etc. and the Tribunal disallowed the weighted deduction amounting to Rs.2,89,50,708/-. The assessee claims to have

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

12. We have considered the rival contentions. It is admitted that the assessee had availed the foreign exchange loan for expanding its business by taking over Dunlop in South Africa through the subsidiaries. It is worthwhile to refer to section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1963; as it stood then : I.T.A. No.272/13 -:9:- S. 37 General; (1) Any expenditure

M/S. DEVICE DRIVEN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowed under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The dis-allowance under Section 40(a)(i) was on the ground that the commission paid was fees for technical services on which tax is deductible at source, which the assessee failed to deduct. The amount shown as commission paid to the non-resident was added to I.T.A.No

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

disallowance is contrary to law in-so far as assessment year 2013-14 is concerned? ITA No.15 of 2021 -4- 4. The circumstances relevant for disposing of the appeal are in a limited sphere and are stated thus: On 30th of September 2013, the assessee filed the returns of the assessment year 2013-2014 declaring Rs.14,12,120/- as taxable

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