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. 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. JOSE THOMAS,

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

d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections may not in terms apply to the trust now in question. These sections however embody nothing more or less

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections may not in terms apply to the trust now in question. These sections however embody nothing more or less

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.

d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections may not in terms apply to the trust now in question. These sections however embody nothing more or less

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections may not in terms apply to the trust now in question. These sections however embody nothing more or less

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

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

d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections may not in terms apply to the trust now in question. These sections however embody nothing more or less

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

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

D G M E N T [ITA Nos.18/2017, 13/2017, 29/2017] S.V. Bhatti, J. These appeals are under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam (for short 'the Revenue') is the appellant in these Tax Appeals. M/s.Meenakshy Enterprises, a proprietary concern, represented by T. Murugan, since deceased, represented

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

D G M E N T S.V.BHATTI, J. We have heard the learned Senior Advocate Joseph Markose and the learned Standing Counsel, Mr Jose Joseph, for parties. 2. M/s Kinfra Export Promotion Industrial Parks Ltd., Kochi/Assessee is the appellant. The Assistant/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi/Revenue is the respondent. 3. The assessee, aggrieved by the common order dated 19.4.2018, filed

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.

D G M E N T A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. As both these appeals arise out of a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in relation to the appellant/assessee and involve a common issue relating to the entitlement of the appellant to deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred

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

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

D G M E N T S.V. Bhatti, J. Heard learned Standing Counsel Mr. Christopher Abraham and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joseph Markos for parties. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue is the appellant. M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd., Kochi/Assessee is the respondent. The subject appeal is at the instance of Revenue from the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

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

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

13(8) of the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer had held that nothing contained in section 11 or section 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

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

2) is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department.” The conclusion recorded by the Tribunal is in line with the principles laid down by various High Courts and this Court in I.T.R. No.68/2000. Hence, substantial question no.2 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Substantial Question No.3 3. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT

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

D. NAIR SRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR SMT. ARYA ANIL SMT. NILOOFAR O. NIZAM RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1(2), KOCHI 682 018. ADV.NAVNEETH N.NATH THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A. No.10/2019 2 JUDGMENT (Dated: 21st December, 2022) Basant Balaji, J. The appellant

M/S. APPOLO TYRES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

D G M E N T S.V.Bhatti, J. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr Joseph Markos and learned Standing Counsel Mr Christopher Abraham for parties. 2. M/s.Apollo Tyres Ltd., Kochi/Assessee is the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam/Revenue is the respondent. The assessee challenges the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), Cochin Bench, Cochin

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

D G M E N T S.V.Bhatti, J. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joseph Markos and learned Standing Counsel Mr. Christopher Abraham for parties. 2. M/s.Apollo Tyres Ltd., Kochi/Assessee is the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue is the respondent. The subject appeal is at the instance of Assessee from the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short

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

D. NAIR SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM-686001. * 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (Suo motu impleaded as additional 2nd respondent in this Appeal(ITA No.112/2018) vide order dtd.21.06.2018.) BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME

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

D. NAIR SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM-686001. * 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (Suo motu impleaded as additional 2nd respondent in this Appeal(ITA No.112/2018) vide order dtd.21.06.2018.) BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME