THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

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.

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

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

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

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

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 RAHABILITATION PLANTATION LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The Subject Matter Of Appeal Relates To Assessment Year 2008-09 & The Controversies Relate To The Allowance Claimed By The Assessee Towards The Replantation Of Rubber Plants In An Area Where Rubber Trees Were Planted & Have Become Unproductive & Are Not In An Abandoned Area As Required By Rule 7A (2) Of The Income Tax Rules 1962, The Deduction Of Expenditure Incurred Towards Upkeep & Maintenance Of Rubber Saplings Till Maturity Or The Trees Yield & The Loss Incurred At The Rubber Sheet Factory.

10(31) of Act 1961. The upkeep and maintenance expenses incurred by the assessee till the maturity of rubber trees are revenue expenditures eligible for deduction under Section 37 of Act 1961.” 4. The assessee raises the following substantial questions of law: “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified

MALANKARA PLANTATIONS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The Subject Matter Of Appeal Relates To Assessment Year 2011-12 & The Controversies Relate To The Allowance Claimed By The Assessee Towards The Replantation Of Rubber Plants In An Area Where Rubber Trees

10(31) of Act 1961. The upkeep and maintenance expenses incurred by the assessee till the maturity of rubber trees are revenue expenditures eligible for I.T.A. No.23/2018 -5- deduction under Section 37 of Act 1961.” 4. The assessee raises the following substantial questions of law: “1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal

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

31 Taxmann.com 300 to the facts of the assessee's case, which are entirely distinguishable from the said decision? 3.2 Whether the Hon'ble ITAT, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is correct to hold that being an incentive provision, section 35(2AB) should be liberally interpreted and deduction allowed in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision

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

M/S. KUNNEL ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS (P) LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed and remanded with the observations as

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

31,20,748/- and (A.Y.-2012-13)—Rs.3,52,69, 463/-. 4. The case of the assessee is that the service tax component shown as an outstanding liability to the Government is on account of - a) the assessee has raised the bills for the works undertaken for and on behalf of several agencies, and the assessee has not received

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

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. A mere provision of expenditure is not allowable as expenditure inasmuch as the assessee has not suffered actual expenditure on account of the said commission payable to the agents. The conclusion and reasoning of the Assessing Officer was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal independently examined the tenability

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

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

disallowance of Rs.52 lakhs was justified as the expenditure did not pertain to the year under consideration. Regarding the quality loss, it was held that assessee could not claim deduction as an expenditure since it did not carry on any manufacturing activity. In the above background, the assessee preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income

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

disallowance of Rs.52 lakhs was justified as the expenditure did not pertain to the year under consideration. Regarding the quality loss, it was held that assessee could not claim deduction as an expenditure since it did not carry on any manufacturing activity. In the above background, the assessee preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income

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

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

disallowance of Rs.52 lakhs was justified as the expenditure did not pertain to the year under consideration. Regarding the quality loss, it was held that assessee could not claim deduction as an expenditure since it did not carry on any manufacturing activity. In the above background, the assessee preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income

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

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

disallowance of Rs.52 lakhs was justified as the expenditure did not pertain to the year under consideration. Regarding the quality loss, it was held that assessee could not claim deduction as an expenditure since it did not carry on any manufacturing activity. In the above background, the assessee preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income

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

disallowance of Rs.52 lakhs was justified as the expenditure did not pertain to the year under consideration. Regarding the quality loss, it was held that assessee could not claim deduction as an expenditure since it did not carry on any manufacturing activity. In the above background, the assessee preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income

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

disallowance of Rs.52 lakhs was justified as the expenditure did not pertain to the year under consideration. Regarding the quality loss, it was held that assessee could not claim deduction as an expenditure since it did not carry on any manufacturing activity. In the above background, the assessee preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income

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

31 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 236/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPT SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT/S: M/S. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.(AAAAK4391F) BY ADVS. JOSE JACOB JAZIL DEV FERDINANTO THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING