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. APPOLO TYRES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

disallowed the set-off claimed by the assessee I.T.A. No.216/2013 -6- under Sec 70 (3) of the Act. 4.2 The reasoning of the Assessing Officer is that whatever income is exempt under different clauses of Section 10, such income shall be removed from the purview of income before computation of the total income of an assessee. Hence, an income that

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

5 Disallowance of claim of unrealized foreign exchange fluctuation gain for adjustment against cost of assets as per section 43A on actual payment restricted to : 4,72,34,591 6 Disallowance of claim of MTM loss on forward contract as deduction : 98,10

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

5. The assessee filed, on 31.10.2007, return for the assessment year 2007-2008. The assessee returned total income of Rs.2,63,24,480/- representing income received under 'interest' head. The assessee claimed that the income received from the sale of crude palm oil and related products constitutes agricultural income and is not liable for tax under the Act. The assessee

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

5. The assessee filed, on 31.10.2007, return for the assessment year 2007-2008. The assessee returned total income of Rs.2,63,24,480/- representing income received under 'interest' head. The assessee claimed that the income received from the sale of crude palm oil and related products constitutes agricultural income and is not liable for tax under the Act. The assessee

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

5. The assessee filed, on 31.10.2007, return for the assessment year 2007-2008. The assessee returned total income of Rs.2,63,24,480/- representing income received under 'interest' head. The assessee claimed that the income received from the sale of crude palm oil and related products constitutes agricultural income and is not liable for tax under the Act. The assessee

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

5. The assessee filed, on 31.10.2007, return for the assessment year 2007-2008. The assessee returned total income of Rs.2,63,24,480/- representing income received under 'interest' head. The assessee claimed that the income received from the sale of crude palm oil and related products constitutes agricultural income and is not liable for tax under the Act. The assessee

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

5. The assessee filed, on 31.10.2007, return for the assessment year 2007-2008. The assessee returned total income of Rs.2,63,24,480/- representing income received under 'interest' head. The assessee claimed that the income received from the sale of crude palm oil and related products constitutes agricultural income and is not liable for tax under the Act. The assessee

SUDARSANAN P.S vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

5 8. We have considered the rival contentions. Admittedly the assessee had failed to produce the books of account for verification and the assessee accepted assessment to be carried out on the basis of accounts and records available with the assessing officer. When the assessee failed to produce the books of account, the officer was justified in assessing the income

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. REENA JOSE

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

5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party in the agreement dt. 10.03.2009 within one month from today.” I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 29 :: 12.8 The Believers Church

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

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

5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party in the agreement dt. 10.03.2009 within one month from today.” I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 29 :: 12.8 The Believers Church

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.

5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party in the agreement dt. 10.03.2009 within one month from today.” I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 29 :: 12.8 The Believers Church

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party in the agreement dt. 10.03.2009 within one month from today.” I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 29 :: 12.8 The Believers Church

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party in the agreement dt. 10.03.2009 within one month from today.” I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 29 :: 12.8 The Believers Church

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

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

5. The following substantial questions of law are raised for consideration: 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the disallowance of service tax payable under Section 43B, particularly when the same was not charged to the Profit and Loss Account or claimed as a deduction in the computation

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

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

5. The assessee filed I.T.A. No. 79/KTM/CIT(A)-IV/2010- 11 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ernakulam. The CIT (Appeals), through Annexure-B Order dated 04.06.2013, allowed the appeal and the Revenue filed I.T.A. No. 512/COCH/2013 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin. Through Annexure-C Order dated 25.10.2016 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the appeal. The appellant