THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions of Section 153C

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions of Section 153C

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions of Section 153C

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.

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions of Section 153C

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

143(3) r.w.s. 144C dt. 18/02/2015 was directed to be deleted : 4,70,07,847 3 Disallowance of claim of additional weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) restricted to : 94,98,220 4 Disallowance of claim of loss on sale of investment in shares as deduction : 4,07,24,151 5 Disallowance of claim of unrealized foreign exchange fluctuation gain for adjustment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

143(3). The assessment was completed by treating the lease rent received from Apollo Tyres Ltd. amounting to Rs.6,61,75,914/- as income from business of the assessee. Thereafter the AO issued notice dated 23.3.2001 and ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 15 reopened the assessment under Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

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

143(3). The assessment was completed by treating the lease rent received from Apollo Tyres Ltd. amounting to Rs.6,61,75,914/- as income from business of the assessee. Thereafter the AO issued notice dated 23.3.2001 and ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 15 reopened the assessment under Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

143(3). The assessment was completed by treating the lease rent received from Apollo Tyres Ltd. amounting to Rs.6,61,75,914/- as income from business of the assessee. Thereafter the AO issued notice dated 23.3.2001 and ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 15 reopened the assessment under Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally

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.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. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.

The appeal is allowed in part, answering question no

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

143(3) among others made a few I.T.A. No.802/2009 -3- additions and deletions on account of loss of amortization of excess book value over face value of securities, adhoc payment of pension and excess claim of deduction in respect of bad debts under Section 36(1)(viia). The assessee filed appeal before CIT (Appeals) and the first appellate authority through

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR vs. THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, (for short ‘the Act’) dated 23.03.2000, among other heads, made the following additions/disallowances. I.T.A. No. 772/2009 -3- (1) Disallowance

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

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

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 in paragraph 12 of the order on merits?” 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties have, in great

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DHANALAXMI BANK LTD

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was completed on 07.12.2017, by disallowing an amount of Rs.1,80,04,849/- under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRICHUR vs. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,TRICHUR.

Appeal stands dismissed

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

disallowance of depreciation made by the Assessing Officer? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the investments made by the assessee in approved government securities form part of its stock in trade and therefore, the claim of depreciation on the revaluation of the securities was rightly claimed

M/S. KERALA STATE CO-OP.AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

143 ITR 981 (MAD) which is affirmed by the Apex Court in [2001] 249 ITR 330(SC): "The tax relief under section 80P(2)(a)(i) is a grant by Parliament not to a category of income but to a category of assessee, namely a co- operative society answering the description of a society engaged in carrying on the business

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