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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

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

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

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.

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before

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

disallowed the depreciation claimed. The Assessing Officer adjusted the actual cost of assets of the assessee in the assessment year 2009- 10 as follows: STATEMENT DEPRECIATION AS ON 31/03/2009 SHOWING DEDUCTION OF SUBSIDY RECEIVED: - Block of asset WDV as on 01/04/2008 as per 143(3) order dated 15/12/2010 for A.Y 2008-09 Subsidy Gross Value after subsidy 1 Buildings

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

2 Claim of preoperative expenditure disallowed in the assessment made u/s. 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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

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

disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further held that Section 194H is attracted to I.T.A. Nos. 18, 13 & 29/2017 -8- the subject entry. For argument sake even if one assumes that Section 194H has no application, Section 194G will be attracted. The Assessing Officer determined the net income assessable to tax for the Assessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S CHOICE FOUNDATION

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

24)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If it is to be treated as a corpus donation, the same can only be excluded in computing the total income under the provisions of section 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By virtue of section 13(8) of the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer had held that nothing

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

2 2009-2010 12/28/11 Appeal No.53/KTM/CIT( A)-IV/11-12 ITA No.113/Coch/ 2014 ITA No.20 of 2018 3 2010-2011 03/30/13 ITA- 18/KTM/CIT(A)- IV/13-14 ITA No.390/Coch/ 2014 ITA No.18 of 2018 4 2012-2013 02/23/15 ITA No.K- 56/KTM/CIT(A)/ KTM/2012-13 ITA No.223/Coch/ 2016 ITA No.21 of 2018 5 2008-2009 11/08/10 Appeal No.20/KTM/CI T(A)-IV/10-11 ITA No.112/Coch/ 2014 ITA No.22

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

2 2009-2010 12/28/11 Appeal No.53/KTM/CIT( A)-IV/11-12 ITA No.113/Coch/ 2014 ITA No.20 of 2018 3 2010-2011 03/30/13 ITA- 18/KTM/CIT(A)- IV/13-14 ITA No.390/Coch/ 2014 ITA No.18 of 2018 4 2012-2013 02/23/15 ITA No.K- 56/KTM/CIT(A)/ KTM/2012-13 ITA No.223/Coch/ 2016 ITA No.21 of 2018 5 2008-2009 11/08/10 Appeal No.20/KTM/CI T(A)-IV/10-11 ITA No.112/Coch/ 2014 ITA No.22

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

2 2009-2010 12/28/11 Appeal No.53/KTM/CIT( A)-IV/11-12 ITA No.113/Coch/ 2014 ITA No.20 of 2018 3 2010-2011 03/30/13 ITA- 18/KTM/CIT(A)- IV/13-14 ITA No.390/Coch/ 2014 ITA No.18 of 2018 4 2012-2013 02/23/15 ITA No.K- 56/KTM/CIT(A)/ KTM/2012-13 ITA No.223/Coch/ 2016 ITA No.21 of 2018 5 2008-2009 11/08/10 Appeal No.20/KTM/CI T(A)-IV/10-11 ITA No.112/Coch/ 2014 ITA No.22

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

2 2009-2010 12/28/11 Appeal No.53/KTM/CIT( A)-IV/11-12 ITA No.113/Coch/ 2014 ITA No.20 of 2018 3 2010-2011 03/30/13 ITA- 18/KTM/CIT(A)- IV/13-14 ITA No.390/Coch/ 2014 ITA No.18 of 2018 4 2012-2013 02/23/15 ITA No.K- 56/KTM/CIT(A)/ KTM/2012-13 ITA No.223/Coch/ 2016 ITA No.21 of 2018 5 2008-2009 11/08/10 Appeal No.20/KTM/CI T(A)-IV/10-11 ITA No.112/Coch/ 2014 ITA No.22

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

2 2009-2010 12/28/11 Appeal No.53/KTM/CIT( A)-IV/11-12 ITA No.113/Coch/ 2014 ITA No.20 of 2018 3 2010-2011 03/30/13 ITA- 18/KTM/CIT(A)- IV/13-14 ITA No.390/Coch/ 2014 ITA No.18 of 2018 4 2012-2013 02/23/15 ITA No.K- 56/KTM/CIT(A)/ KTM/2012-13 ITA No.223/Coch/ 2016 ITA No.21 of 2018 5 2008-2009 11/08/10 Appeal No.20/KTM/CI T(A)-IV/10-11 ITA No.112/Coch/ 2014 ITA No.22

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

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

2(14) is not a word of art but a word of commercial implication. The bottom line is the availability of assets, activities carried out for exploiting the assets and that the assessee is not a mere onlooker in the activities of the company or a passive recipient of rent for utilization of facilities. 18. Applying the above ratio

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

2(14) is not a word of art but a word of commercial implication. The bottom line is the availability of assets, activities carried out for exploiting the assets and that the assessee is not a mere onlooker in the activities of the company or a passive recipient of rent for utilization of facilities. 18. Applying the above ratio

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

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

2(14) is not a word of art but a word of commercial implication. The bottom line is the availability of assets, activities carried out for exploiting the assets and that the assessee is not a mere onlooker in the activities of the company or a passive recipient of rent for utilization of facilities. 18. Applying the above ratio

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

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

2(14) is not a word of art but a word of commercial implication. The bottom line is the availability of assets, activities carried out for exploiting the assets and that the assessee is not a mere onlooker in the activities of the company or a passive recipient of rent for utilization of facilities. 18. Applying the above ratio