SUDARSANAN P.S vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) to the extent of Rs.32,18,677/- for non-payment of TDS under Section 194C of the Act. We hold that the assessee was entitled to deduct the aforesaid sum even though tax had not been deducted at source. 11

M/S.SHALOM CHARITABLE MINISTRIES OF INDIA, vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? B) Ought not the Appellate Tribunal have held that microfinance activity is a charitable activity? c) Has not the Appellate Tribunal erred in disallowing

P.K.ABDUL KHADER & BROTHERS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowing the Dealer’s claim or special rebate of purchase tax paid under Section 6(2) of the KVAT Act on the closing stock held by the Dealer on 31.03.2014. As noted earlier, with effect from 01.04.2014, the Dealer opted for payment of compounded rate of tax. All three authorities have held that the proposal to reverse the special rebate

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.G.T.N.INDUSTRIES LTD.

The appeal stands dismissed accordingly

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

disallowance on account of 80HHC deduction" noted in paragraph 7 of its order based on the decision reported in 248 ITR 372 ad is not the interference and the decision relied on wrong and against the decision reported in 295 ITR 228 (SC)? I.T.A. No.1699/2009 -4- 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

11 finding on any issue. The entire matter is left open and restored to the AO. In our opinion, the revenue should not ahve any grievance. We find no merit in the appeal filed by the revenue. We, therefore, confirm the orders of the CIT(A)." 4.2 The DR as well as the AR was unable to enlighten us what

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

11 finding on any issue. The entire matter is left open and restored to the AO. In our opinion, the revenue should not ahve any grievance. We find no merit in the appeal filed by the revenue. We, therefore, confirm the orders of the CIT(A)." 4.2 The DR as well as the AR was unable to enlighten us what

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

11 finding on any issue. The entire matter is left open and restored to the AO. In our opinion, the revenue should not ahve any grievance. We find no merit in the appeal filed by the revenue. We, therefore, confirm the orders of the CIT(A)." 4.2 The DR as well as the AR was unable to enlighten us what

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

11 finding on any issue. The entire matter is left open and restored to the AO. In our opinion, the revenue should not ahve any grievance. We find no merit in the appeal filed by the revenue. We, therefore, confirm the orders of the CIT(A)." 4.2 The DR as well as the AR was unable to enlighten us what

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

11 finding on any issue. The entire matter is left open and restored to the AO. In our opinion, the revenue should not ahve any grievance. We find no merit in the appeal filed by the revenue. We, therefore, confirm the orders of the CIT(A)." 4.2 The DR as well as the AR was unable to enlighten us what

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

section 37 of the Act. The claim was disallowed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court interfered with the finding. It was observed in the said decision that “the correct view in our opinion was whether the amount advanced to the subsidiary or associated company or any other party was advanced as a measure

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

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

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. USHA MURUGAN

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

disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further held that Section 194H is attracted to I.T.A. Nos. 18, 13 & 29/2017 -8- the subject entry. For argument sake even if one assumes that Section 194H has no application, Section 194G will be attracted. The Assessing Officer determined the net income assessable to tax for the Assessment

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, 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

M/S. INDITRADE CAPITAL LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed, matter remitted to Income Tax

Bench: The Return Was Filed By The Assessee For The Subject Assessment Year. The Other Controversy Is

disallowance of payment of Rs.2,11,115/- by assessee to customers towards settlement of outstanding amount due to customer. The outstanding is stated by the assessee as resulting primarily on account of clerical errors and corrected upon reconciliation of entries between the parties. The provisions of law which have bearing are excerpted before hand. 3.1 Sec.40A(7) of the Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KITEX GARMENTS LTD., KIZHAKKAMBALAM

The appeal stands dismissed accordingly

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). The I.T.A. No.49/2009 -3- assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the appeal was allowed. The Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal through order in Annexure-C dismissed the appeal. Hence, the instant Tax Appeal