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

b) whether the Tribunal had erred in granting deduction under Section 35D regarding short-term loan, in view of the Explanation to Section 35D(3) which refers only to long-term borrowings, and (c) whether the Tribunal had erred in directing deduction under Section 80HH and 80-I on the miscellaneous income of Rs.26,64,113 being income on sale

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

M/S. JOYALUKKAS INDIA LTD, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial questions

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

13), an appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The issue that came up for consideration before the Tribunal was regarding the disallowance of an amount of Rs.92,28,405/- under proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The second appeal raises the said question. 4. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration: i. In the facts

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.

13. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) of Rs. 1,42,23,305/- and ITA Nos.68/2017, 196/2019, 63/2019, 1/2018, 219/2019 -8- return of income at Rs.1,62,080/-. 5. The Assessing Officer first disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer concludes

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.

13. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) of Rs. 1,42,23,305/- and ITA Nos.68/2017, 196/2019, 63/2019, 1/2018, 219/2019 -8- return of income at Rs.1,62,080/-. 5. The Assessing Officer first disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer concludes

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

b) in relation to any other capital asset - (i) where the capital asset become the property of the assessee before the 1" day of April, 1981, means the cost of acquisition of the asset to the assessee or the fair market value of the asset on the 1 st day of April, 1981, at the option of the assessee

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

b) in relation to any other capital asset - (i) where the capital asset become the property of the assessee before the 1" day of April, 1981, means the cost of acquisition of the asset to the assessee or the fair market value of the asset on the 1 st day of April, 1981, at the option of the assessee

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

b) in relation to any other capital asset - (i) where the capital asset become the property of the assessee before the 1" day of April, 1981, means the cost of acquisition of the asset to the assessee or the fair market value of the asset on the 1 st day of April, 1981, at the option of the assessee

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.

b) in relation to any other capital asset - (i) where the capital asset become the property of the assessee before the 1" day of April, 1981, means the cost of acquisition of the asset to the assessee or the fair market value of the asset on the 1 st day of April, 1981, at the option of the assessee

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

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

b) in relation to any other capital asset - (i) where the capital asset become the property of the assessee before the 1" day of April, 1981, means the cost of acquisition of the asset to the assessee or the fair market value of the asset on the 1 st day of April, 1981, at the option of the assessee

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

B dated 25.03.2010, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The further appeal befor ITAT resulted in dismissal through the common judgment impugned in the appeal. It is useful and convenient to excerpt the following portion of the common judgment to appreciate the substantial questions and the argument of Mr.Anil D.Nair. "We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

B dated 25.03.2010, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The further appeal befor ITAT resulted in dismissal through the common judgment impugned in the appeal. It is useful and convenient to excerpt the following portion of the common judgment to appreciate the substantial questions and the argument of Mr.Anil D.Nair. "We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

B dated 25.03.2010, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The further appeal befor ITAT resulted in dismissal through the common judgment impugned in the appeal. It is useful and convenient to excerpt the following portion of the common judgment to appreciate the substantial questions and the argument of Mr.Anil D.Nair. "We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

B dated 25.03.2010, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The further appeal befor ITAT resulted in dismissal through the common judgment impugned in the appeal. It is useful and convenient to excerpt the following portion of the common judgment to appreciate the substantial questions and the argument of Mr.Anil D.Nair. "We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

B dated 25.03.2010, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The further appeal befor ITAT resulted in dismissal through the common judgment impugned in the appeal. It is useful and convenient to excerpt the following portion of the common judgment to appreciate the substantial questions and the argument of Mr.Anil D.Nair. "We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

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

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

13,12,992/- related to the trade debts and the remaining amount represented two categories as follows: 1. Advances given for acquisition of capital assets - Rs.28,67,407/- 2. Advances given for acquisition of Revenue items -Rs.2,32,93,575/- 1 (2019) 419 ITR 100 I.T.A. No.172/2013 -5- The Assessing Officer treated the claim of Rs.28,67,407/- as capital