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. 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

SUDARSANAN P.S vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

3. Whether the addition of Rs.8,86,790/- made by the assessing officer as affirmed by the Tribunal on account of disallowing the claim under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-payment of TDS under ITA NO. 70 OF 2017 4 Section 194H of the Act is justified. 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in restoring

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

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

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

3) of the Income Tax Act dated 10/03/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly, invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 10/03/2015 is set aside with a direction to the Assessing Officer to redo the same

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

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 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

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

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

3. The details of assessment orders, year of assessment and orders of the authorities, for brevity, are stated in the following table. Sl.No. Assessment year & Date of Assessment Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Order of the Appellate Tribunal ITA No. 1 29.12.2009; 2007-2008 ITA-21/PGT/CIT(A) V/2009-10 dated 09.12.2016 ITA Nos.79 & 80/Coch/2017 & S.P.Nos.17 & 18/Coch/2017 dated

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

3 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

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

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

3. The appeals raise a question of entitlement by way of deduction of Income Tax paid under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (for short 'Act 1991') and under Section 43B of the Central Act. 4. The assessee is a company with the share holding held by the Governments of India and Kerala. The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation

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

3. The appeals raise a question of entitlement by way of deduction of Income Tax paid under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (for short 'Act 1991') and under Section 43B of the Central Act. 4. The assessee is a company with the share holding held by the Governments of India and Kerala. The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation

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

3. The appeals raise a question of entitlement by way of deduction of Income Tax paid under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (for short 'Act 1991') and under Section 43B of the Central Act. 4. The assessee is a company with the share holding held by the Governments of India and Kerala. The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation

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

3. The appeals raise a question of entitlement by way of deduction of Income Tax paid under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (for short 'Act 1991') and under Section 43B of the Central Act. 4. The assessee is a company with the share holding held by the Governments of India and Kerala. The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation

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

3. The appeals raise a question of entitlement by way of deduction of Income Tax paid under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (for short 'Act 1991') and under Section 43B of the Central Act. 4. The assessee is a company with the share holding held by the Governments of India and Kerala. The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation