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.

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 than the principles which have been applied to all trusts

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

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 than the principles which have been applied to all trusts

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

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

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 than the principles which have been applied to all trusts

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

3. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is legally right in deleting waited deduction of Rs.94,98,220/- under S.35(2AB) claimed by the assessee in respect of expenditure claimed on R & D expenses met outside India? ITA No.44/2017 -25- 3.1 Whether the Hon'ble ITAT, in the facts and circumstances

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

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

17. The next issue is regarding the disallowance of Rs. 1,63,371/- being the gratuity payable to the employees retired during the relevant previous year. The AO made the disallowance of Rs.1,63,371/- in respect of the gratuity payable. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the said disallowance. I.T.A. No. 772/2009 -6- 18. The Id. counsel

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

3. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and facts of the case in not considering whether the Commissioner of Income Tax could have exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act in the light of the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v P.D.Abraham alias Appachan

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

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing assessee bank's claim ofRs. 50,17,000/ as expenditure on account of payment of pension? 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in following the decision of the Tribunal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

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 was on the ground

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

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 was on the ground

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

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

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 was on the ground

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

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

3. It may be necessary to refer briefly to the circumstances of this case as pleaded by the assessee. With a view to expand its business, the assessee intended to take over the Dunlop Tyre Manufacturing Company in South Africa. For that purpose, it formed a company in Mauritius as a wholly- owned subsidiary of the assessee known as Apollo

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

Section 43(1). 2 (2022) 2 SCC 603 3(MANU/MH/1197/2019) ITA Nos.62&65/2018 16 9. Without prejudice to the main argument of applicability of Explanation and proviso to 43(1) of the Act, it is alternatively argued that orders impugned in the appeal are illegal and computation of written down value on a broad spectrum of all the assets

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

3. The appeals raise a question of entitlement by way of deduction of Income Tax paid under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (for short 'Act 1991') and under Section 43B of the Central Act. 4. The assessee is a company with the share holding held by the Governments of India and Kerala. The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation

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

3. The appeals raise a question of entitlement by way of deduction of Income Tax paid under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (for short 'Act 1991') and under Section 43B of the Central Act. 4. The assessee is a company with the share holding held by the Governments of India and Kerala. The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation

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

3. The appeals raise a question of entitlement by way of deduction of Income Tax paid under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (for short 'Act 1991') and under Section 43B of the Central Act. 4. The assessee is a company with the share holding held by the Governments of India and Kerala. The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation

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

3. The appeals raise a question of entitlement by way of deduction of Income Tax paid under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (for short 'Act 1991') and under Section 43B of the Central Act. 4. The assessee is a company with the share holding held by the Governments of India and Kerala. The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation

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

3. The appeals raise a question of entitlement by way of deduction of Income Tax paid under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (for short 'Act 1991') and under Section 43B of the Central Act. 4. The assessee is a company with the share holding held by the Governments of India and Kerala. The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation