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

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S CHOICE FOUNDATION

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

disallowing the claim u/s 11(1)(d) of the corpus donation on the ground that it is not voluntary and not capital in nature is not in accordance with law and hence void. It is ordered accordingly.” 6. The above findings are under challenge in this appeal. The substantial questions of law framed by the Revenue reads thus

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

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.

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

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

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

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

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

SUDARSANAN P.S vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1. Whether sub-clause (k) of Section 194(c) has applicability for the previous year 2006-07 (AY-2007-08). 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in restoring the addition of Rs.32,88,677/- made by the assessing officer on account of the dis- allowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-payment of TDS under Section

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

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