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

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

13 :: 'C.R.' J U D G M E N T Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. As all these appeals filed by the Revenue arise out of a common order dated 30.09.2019 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'], Cochin Bench, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

13 :: 'C.R.' J U D G M E N T Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. As all these appeals filed by the Revenue arise out of a common order dated 30.09.2019 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'], Cochin Bench, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

13 :: 'C.R.' J U D G M E N T Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. As all these appeals filed by the Revenue arise out of a common order dated 30.09.2019 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'], Cochin Bench, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment

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.

13 :: 'C.R.' J U D G M E N T Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. As all these appeals filed by the Revenue arise out of a common order dated 30.09.2019 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'], Cochin Bench, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment

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

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

13 :: 'C.R.' J U D G M E N T Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. As all these appeals filed by the Revenue arise out of a common order dated 30.09.2019 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'], Cochin Bench, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM vs. M/S.SAHYADRI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCEITY LIMITED

The appeal is disposed of as indicated above

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

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer concludes that the assessee earned income from interest on deposits from members and deposits made in scheduled Banks from trading commodities and interest from call money depositors. In view of the view taken by the Assessing Officer, the said income has been treated as income from

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.SAHYADRI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.

The appeal is disposed of as indicated above

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

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer concludes that the assessee earned income from interest on deposits from members and deposits made in scheduled Banks from trading commodities and interest from call money depositors. In view of the view taken by the Assessing Officer, the said income has been treated as income from

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

10:- referred to in section 37 of the Act will undoubtedly include expenses incurred as a measure of commercial expediency. 14. The words commercial expediency is a word of wide import. It has been held that the said word can include such expenditure that a prudent businessman would incur to improve his business. In this context, the decision relied upon

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

M/S. APPOLLO TYRES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

10 of AS-II such adjustment in the carrying amount of the fixed assets was not possible, particularly in the light of section 43(1). The unamended section 43A nowhere required as condition precedent for making necessary adjustment in the carrying amount of the fixed asset that there should be actual payment of the increased/decreased liability as a consequence