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

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

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 the amount towards provision for bad and doubtful debts in its income and expenditure account? D) Has not the Appellate Tribunal erred in disallowing 20% of the expenses supported

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.APOLLO TYRES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

section 260A of the Act. 6. We heard Senior Advocate Joseph Markose instructed by Adv. Sharad Joseph Kodianthara, on behalf of the I.T.A. No.272/13 -:6:- assessee and the Adv. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the Department. 7. Appellant had entered into the foreign exchange forward contract with Citi Bank in January 2006. The purpose for which the loan

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

6. The Assessing Officer rejected deduction claimed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on the whole of its income, whereas a part of income alone is amenable to Agricultural Income Tax Act. The agricultural income is excluded from the purview of Central Act and therefore is not part of computation

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

6. The Assessing Officer rejected deduction claimed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on the whole of its income, whereas a part of income alone is amenable to Agricultural Income Tax Act. The agricultural income is excluded from the purview of Central Act and therefore is not part of computation

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

6. The Assessing Officer rejected deduction claimed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on the whole of its income, whereas a part of income alone is amenable to Agricultural Income Tax Act. The agricultural income is excluded from the purview of Central Act and therefore is not part of computation

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

6. The Assessing Officer rejected deduction claimed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on the whole of its income, whereas a part of income alone is amenable to Agricultural Income Tax Act. The agricultural income is excluded from the purview of Central Act and therefore is not part of computation

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

6. The Assessing Officer rejected deduction claimed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on the whole of its income, whereas a part of income alone is amenable to Agricultural Income Tax Act. The agricultural income is excluded from the purview of Central Act and therefore is not part of computation

TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMSSR;INCOME TAX,C-I,THIRUVALLA

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

11 OF 2008 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 297/2006 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S: TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. VALANJAVATTOM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADVS. SRI RAJA KANNAN, SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR; SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT/S: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX OTHER PRESENT: ADV RAJA KANNAN FOR THE APPELLANT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME

TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

11 OF 2008 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 297/2006 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S: TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. VALANJAVATTOM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADVS. SRI RAJA KANNAN, SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR; SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT/S: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX OTHER PRESENT: ADV RAJA KANNAN FOR THE APPELLANT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME

M/S. KINFRA EXPORT PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARKS LTD., vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)

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

Disallowance 1 2008-2009 Rs.48,04,760/- 2 2009-2010 Rs.12,65,118/- 4.2 The Assessing Officer, for the assessment year 2009-10 reduced the subsidy amounting to Rs.13,75,00,885/- received between 1996 and 2000 from the gross value of capital assets of the assessee amounting to Rs.15,44,93,432/-. Thus the Gross Value after reducing subsidy

K.A.RAUF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

6. Adv. Meera V. Menon formulated the following substantial question of law concerning the agricultural income decided by the order under appeal: “Whether the orders under appeal insofar as agricultural income is concerned suffer from the error of law and non-application of mind?”. 6.1. The assessee claimed agricultural income from agricultural properties situated in the Sreerange, Maharashtra and Pang

K.A.RAUF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

6. Adv. Meera V. Menon formulated the following substantial question of law concerning the agricultural income decided by the order under appeal: “Whether the orders under appeal insofar as agricultural income is concerned suffer from the error of law and non-application of mind?”. 6.1. The assessee claimed agricultural income from agricultural properties situated in the Sreerange, Maharashtra and Pang

K.A.RAUF, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX,

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

6. Adv. Meera V. Menon formulated the following substantial question of law concerning the agricultural income decided by the order under appeal: “Whether the orders under appeal insofar as agricultural income is concerned suffer from the error of law and non-application of mind?”. 6.1. The assessee claimed agricultural income from agricultural properties situated in the Sreerange, Maharashtra and Pang

K.A.RAUF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX

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

6. Adv. Meera V. Menon formulated the following substantial question of law concerning the agricultural income decided by the order under appeal: “Whether the orders under appeal insofar as agricultural income is concerned suffer from the error of law and non-application of mind?”. 6.1. The assessee claimed agricultural income from agricultural properties situated in the Sreerange, Maharashtra and Pang

K.A.RAUG vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

6. Adv. Meera V. Menon formulated the following substantial question of law concerning the agricultural income decided by the order under appeal: “Whether the orders under appeal insofar as agricultural income is concerned suffer from the error of law and non-application of mind?”. 6.1. The assessee claimed agricultural income from agricultural properties situated in the Sreerange, Maharashtra and Pang