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

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

D order held that: "11.3 The facts, for A.Y.2010-11 are totally different from those of the A.Y.2002-03. In the relevant A.Y. 2002-03. In the relevant A.Y. 2002-03, the assessee company has sold the subsidiary concern to another subsidiary concern and the resultant capital loss had been claimed as business loss. Hence, the reliance 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.

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. 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

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

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

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.SHALOM CHARITABLE MINISTRIES OF INDIA, vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

17 & 18/Coch/2017 dated 25.04.2018 319/20 19 I.T.A.Nos.315 & 319 of 2019 -4- 4. The assessee claims it is a Trust running schools and providing microfinancing activities to self-help groups of women. The assessee borrows money from nationalised banks of financial institutions and claims to be providing financial assistance to the self-help groups of women. The assessee claimed exemption

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

5 SCC 189], laid down four propositions to identify whether the rental income received by an assessee could be treated as business I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:15:- income or not. The prepositions are relevant for the present case and are as follows: “1. no precise test can be laid down to ascertain whether income (referred to by whatever nomenclature, lease

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

5 SCC 189], laid down four propositions to identify whether the rental income received by an assessee could be treated as business I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:15:- income or not. The prepositions are relevant for the present case and are as follows: “1. no precise test can be laid down to ascertain whether income (referred to by whatever nomenclature, lease

M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. (FORMERLY PREMIER TYRES LTD) vs. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),RANGE-2, ERNAKULAM

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

5 SCC 189], laid down four propositions to identify whether the rental income received by an assessee could be treated as business I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:15:- income or not. The prepositions are relevant for the present case and are as follows: “1. no precise test can be laid down to ascertain whether income (referred to by whatever nomenclature, lease

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

5 SCC 189], laid down four propositions to identify whether the rental income received by an assessee could be treated as business I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:15:- income or not. The prepositions are relevant for the present case and are as follows: “1. no precise test can be laid down to ascertain whether income (referred to by whatever nomenclature, lease

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

5 SCC 189], laid down four propositions to identify whether the rental income received by an assessee could be treated as business I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:15:- income or not. The prepositions are relevant for the present case and are as follows: “1. no precise test can be laid down to ascertain whether income (referred to by whatever nomenclature, lease