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

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

Section 12(2) for the closing stock on 31.03.2014 is illegal and unsustainable. The reply further refers to whether the authorities were justified in disallowing

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

2) of section 115BBE to be prospective in nature. 5. Whether the Tribunal and the Principal CIT have erred or not in holding disallowance of the set-off of the brought forward losses against the deemed income allowed by the assessing authority in its original order and whether or not such disallowance is contrary

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. THE PONKUNNAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

Appeals are allowed and remanded back

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee is primarily engaged in the business of banking. Having regard to such a finding, it was recorded that by operation of Section 80P(4), the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act. The assessee aggrieved by the said order filed appeal before

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

12 trustees of the Trust belong to three closely related family groups, and their details are as follows: (1) Sri.Babu P. Thomas, his wife Smt.Gracy Babu and their two major sons. (2) Sri.Jose Thomas, his wife Smt.Reena Jose and their major son and daughter. (3) Sri.P.J.Paulose, his wife Smt.Lizzy Paulose and their two major daughters. Due to difficulties in managing

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

12 trustees of the Trust belong to three closely related family groups, and their details are as follows: (1) Sri.Babu P. Thomas, his wife Smt.Gracy Babu and their two major sons. (2) Sri.Jose Thomas, his wife Smt.Reena Jose and their major son and daughter. (3) Sri.P.J.Paulose, his wife Smt.Lizzy Paulose and their two major daughters. Due to difficulties in managing

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.

12 trustees of the Trust belong to three closely related family groups, and their details are as follows: (1) Sri.Babu P. Thomas, his wife Smt.Gracy Babu and their two major sons. (2) Sri.Jose Thomas, his wife Smt.Reena Jose and their major son and daughter. (3) Sri.P.J.Paulose, his wife Smt.Lizzy Paulose and their two major daughters. Due to difficulties in managing

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

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

12 trustees of the Trust belong to three closely related family groups, and their details are as follows: (1) Sri.Babu P. Thomas, his wife Smt.Gracy Babu and their two major sons. (2) Sri.Jose Thomas, his wife Smt.Reena Jose and their major son and daughter. (3) Sri.P.J.Paulose, his wife Smt.Lizzy Paulose and their two major daughters. Due to difficulties in managing

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

12 trustees of the Trust belong to three closely related family groups, and their details are as follows: (1) Sri.Babu P. Thomas, his wife Smt.Gracy Babu and their two major sons. (2) Sri.Jose Thomas, his wife Smt.Reena Jose and their major son and daughter. (3) Sri.P.J.Paulose, his wife Smt.Lizzy Paulose and their two major daughters. Due to difficulties in managing

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

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

SUDARSANAN P.S vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2 to Section 93 of the Amendment Act will come into effect from 01.04.2007, Section 54 of the Finance Act, 2007 which amends Section 194C of the Act specifies that the amendment in 194C will be substituted with effect from 01.06.2007. Thus, it is beyond the pale of any dispute, that the liability for deducting tax at source for payments

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, COCHIN vs. APPOLLO TYRES LTD.

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

Section 80 1A of the Income Tax Act ? Learned counsel appearing for the parties have confined their submissions to substantial question nos.1 and 2. 4. Substantial question no.1 deals with payment of bonus by the assessee in the Assessment Year 2003-04 claimable and paid in the Assessment Year 2002-03. The Department, raising similar questions of law, filed

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

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

12 shall operate so as to exclude any income from the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the income assessed for the assessment year 2010-11 is short by Rs.2,08,91,000/-. 5. In the light of the above discussion, I find that the assessment order passed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

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

section 40(a)(ia) are attracted to the above payments? 2. Did not the Tribunal err in deleting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source u/s.194H/194G of the Income Tax Act from the payment of commission to sub- agents? 3. Should not the Tribunal have considered the issues raised (declined to be considered

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

12 and in the case of income from the furniture and fixtures to those mentioned in sub-section (3) and cannot assess the income under Section 9 or Section 10. 8.6 Next in point of time is Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery (P.) Ltd case. As narrated above, the Division Bench laid down, after referring to a few judgements referred

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

12 and in the case of income from the furniture and fixtures to those mentioned in sub-section (3) and cannot assess the income under Section 9 or Section 10. 8.6 Next in point of time is Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery (P.) Ltd case. As narrated above, the Division Bench laid down, after referring to a few judgements referred

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowance of Rs.52 lakhs was justified as the expenditure did not pertain to the year under consideration. Regarding the quality loss, it was held that assessee could not claim deduction as an expenditure since it did not carry on any manufacturing activity. In the above background, the assessee preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income