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. SMT.GRACY BABU,

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

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

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

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

disallow the claim of deduction. Learned counsel relied upon the decisions in SA Builders Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh and Others [(2007) 288 ITR 1], Patnaik and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1986) 27 Taxman 287) and Union of India I.T.A. No.272/13 -:8:- and Others v. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Others

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

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

disallowable, and (iii) the pre-operative expenses could not be written off at one go but had to be capitalised and admissible depreciation allowed thereon: Held, dismissing the appeal, that the new unit was a part of the existing business and there was no dispute that there was unity of control and inter lacing of the units. Thus the expenses

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

M/S 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

M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. (FORMERLY PREMIER TYRES LTD) vs. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),RANGE-2, ERNAKULAM

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

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

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TX

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

M/S.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

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.

30 days of receipt of the notice. The appellant failed to file the return of income in response to the notice under Section 148. A return was however filed by the appellant on 5.7.2012, which was much beyond the date for filing of return in terms of Section 139(4) of the IT Act. The return of income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

disallowance confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and treating ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 17 the receipts from ATL as income from other sources, the assessee filed IT Appeal No.346/Coch/2003. Through the order in Annexure-C the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed and the Tribunal held that the lease rental received by the assessee from ATL under rehabilitation scheme

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

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

disallowance confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and treating ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 17 the receipts from ATL as income from other sources, the assessee filed IT Appeal No.346/Coch/2003. Through the order in Annexure-C the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed and the Tribunal held that the lease rental received by the assessee from ATL under rehabilitation scheme