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.

16 :: under Section 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.

16 :: under Section 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.

16 :: under Section 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.

16 :: under Section 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. GRACY BABU,

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

16 :: under Section 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

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

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 37 of the Act. The claim was disallowed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court interfered with the finding. It was observed in the said decision that “the correct view in our opinion was whether the amount advanced to the subsidiary or associated company or any other party was advanced as a measure

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

disallowance of deduction of agricultural income tax paid under Act 1991 is illegal. 8. Senior Adv.Mr.PKR Menon argues to sustain the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the authorities under the Central Act viz. that the deduction claimed is an import arising as an obligation under Act 1991 to the assessee. Act 1991 deals with agricultural income payable

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

disallowance of deduction of agricultural income tax paid under Act 1991 is illegal. 8. Senior Adv.Mr.PKR Menon argues to sustain the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the authorities under the Central Act viz. that the deduction claimed is an import arising as an obligation under Act 1991 to the assessee. Act 1991 deals with agricultural income payable

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

disallowance of deduction of agricultural income tax paid under Act 1991 is illegal. 8. Senior Adv.Mr.PKR Menon argues to sustain the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the authorities under the Central Act viz. that the deduction claimed is an import arising as an obligation under Act 1991 to the assessee. Act 1991 deals with agricultural income payable

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

disallowance of deduction of agricultural income tax paid under Act 1991 is illegal. 8. Senior Adv.Mr.PKR Menon argues to sustain the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the authorities under the Central Act viz. that the deduction claimed is an import arising as an obligation under Act 1991 to the assessee. Act 1991 deals with agricultural income payable

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

disallowance of deduction of agricultural income tax paid under Act 1991 is illegal. 8. Senior Adv.Mr.PKR Menon argues to sustain the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the authorities under the Central Act viz. that the deduction claimed is an import arising as an obligation under Act 1991 to the assessee. Act 1991 deals with agricultural income payable

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

disallowance of Rs.5,15,34,726/- on account of prepaid expenses is legally justified in the facts and circumstances of the case? ITA No.44/2017 -49- 15. The assessee in the previous year ending 31.03.2010 claimed deduction of Rs.5,15,34,726/-. The said claim is claimed towards prepaid expenses, insurance, interest, rent and general. The said expenditure can be termed

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

APOLLO TYRES LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

16 DT.31.03.2017 ITA NO.249/COCH/2018 DTD 21.03.2019 238/2019 2.2 The appeals are admitted on the following substantial question of law. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the disallowance of deduction under Section

APOLLO TYRES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

16 DT.31.03.2017 ITA NO.249/COCH/2018 DTD 21.03.2019 238/2019 2.2 The appeals are admitted on the following substantial question of law. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the disallowance of deduction under Section

M/S. APPOLLO TYRES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

16. We are of the opinion that the decision of this court in Woodward's case [2009] 312 ITR 254 settles the second issue as well. We respectfully concur with the same and hold that all the assessment years in question being prior to the amendment in section 43A of the Act with effect from April 1, 2003 the assessee

M/S.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