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 40A(7) of the Income tax Act, 1961 the Tribunal is right in law in interfering with the disallowance of gratuity payable?” 3. Question no.1(a) deals with the claim on revaluation of current securities. The question is no more res integra and answered in favour of the assessee by this Court in the decision reported in Commissioner

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

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 of commercial expediency”. The Supreme Court further observed

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

18 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 390/Coch/2014 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Respondent: 1 M/S OIL PALM INDIA LTD XIV/130,KODIMATHA,KOTTAYAM SOUTH, KOTTTAYAM - 686013 REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM- 686 001. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

18 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 390/Coch/2014 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Respondent: 1 M/S OIL PALM INDIA LTD XIV/130,KODIMATHA,KOTTAYAM SOUTH, KOTTTAYAM - 686013 REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM- 686 001. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

18 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 390/Coch/2014 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Respondent: 1 M/S OIL PALM INDIA LTD XIV/130,KODIMATHA,KOTTAYAM SOUTH, KOTTTAYAM - 686013 REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM- 686 001. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

18 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 390/Coch/2014 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Respondent: 1 M/S OIL PALM INDIA LTD XIV/130,KODIMATHA,KOTTAYAM SOUTH, KOTTTAYAM - 686013 REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM- 686 001. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

18 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 390/Coch/2014 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/Respondent: 1 M/S OIL PALM INDIA LTD XIV/130,KODIMATHA,KOTTAYAM SOUTH, KOTTTAYAM - 686013 REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM- 686 001. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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. 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

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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DHANALAXMI BANK LTD

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

disallowing an amount of Rs.1,80,04,849/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, the said order was set aside by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur, by an order dated 18.12.2018 finding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In the order of the Principal Commissioner, it was noticed that

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

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

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

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TX

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

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

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

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