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

22 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 112/Coch/2014 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Respondent: M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. XIV/130, KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM SOUTH, KOTTAYAM- 686013,REP. BY MG.DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM-686001. * 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED

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

22 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 112/Coch/2014 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Respondent: M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. XIV/130, KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM SOUTH, KOTTAYAM- 686013,REP. BY MG.DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM-686001. * 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED

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

22 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 112/Coch/2014 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Respondent: M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. XIV/130, KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM SOUTH, KOTTAYAM- 686013,REP. BY MG.DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM-686001. * 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED

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

22 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 112/Coch/2014 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Respondent: M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. XIV/130, KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM SOUTH, KOTTAYAM- 686013,REP. BY MG.DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM-686001. * 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

22 :: subsequent decisions of the High Court that the Finance Act, 1994, amended section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy right. would be taken as nil. By this amendment, the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes of the provisions relating to capital gains was met. In other words

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

22 :: subsequent decisions of the High Court that the Finance Act, 1994, amended section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy right. would be taken as nil. By this amendment, the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes of the provisions relating to capital gains was met. In other words

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

22 :: subsequent decisions of the High Court that the Finance Act, 1994, amended section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy right. would be taken as nil. By this amendment, the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes of the provisions relating to capital gains was met. In other words

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

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

22 :: subsequent decisions of the High Court that the Finance Act, 1994, amended section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy right. would be taken as nil. By this amendment, the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes of the provisions relating to capital gains was met. In other words

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.

22 :: subsequent decisions of the High Court that the Finance Act, 1994, amended section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy right. would be taken as nil. By this amendment, the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes of the provisions relating to capital gains was met. In other words

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 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

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee to treat the rental income as income from the business. The said view of the Assessing Officer has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Annexure-B order dated 14.03.2006, and by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide order dated 24.08.2007. 3.1 The assessee placed strong reliance

TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMSSR;INCOME TAX,C-I,THIRUVALLA

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee to treat the rental income as income from the business. The said view of the Assessing Officer has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Annexure-B order dated 14.03.2006, and by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide order dated 24.08.2007. 3.1 The assessee placed strong reliance

M/S. MINI MUTHOOTTU CREDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

22,440/-. Its case was selected for scrutiny under Section 143(2) of the IT Act and the assessment that followed, it was assessed to a total income of Rs.2,02,75,110/-. In arriving at the total income, the assessing officer disallowed a sum of Rs.90,73,279/- being the interest that was paid by the appellant on long

M/S. KERALA STATE CO-OP.AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

10 of 1949)? b. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the Appellant, not being a primary cooperative bank, central cooperative bank or a state cooperative bank, is not a co- operative bank and accordingly cannot be denied the benefit conferred on a cooperative society under Section 80P of the Act? c. Whether on the facts

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, 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

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

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

10. However, it is seen from the records produced for our consideration that, instead of reviving the business, assessee continued the rental arrangement with ATL. Fresh lease deeds were executed for different periods of one year each, for all the assessment years involved in these appeals. The assessee never approached the BIFR to continue the arrangement nor sought sanction/approval