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

37 and not only section 36(1)(iii), hence there is no infirmity therein. As regards question No. (2) it may be stated that the assessee established a phosphoric acid project as an extension to its present business activities and for that purpose obtained a foreign currency loan from IDBI which in turn was refinanced by COFACE subject

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

disallowing its claim for expenditure in the same amount. In relation to the Trust, the finding of the Tribunal, which is impugned in I.T.A.No.6/2021 filed by the Department in relation to assessment year 2010-11 is found in paragraphs 19 to 19.5, which read as follows: “19. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had created a fresh asset

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

disallowing its claim for expenditure in the same amount. In relation to the Trust, the finding of the Tribunal, which is impugned in I.T.A.No.6/2021 filed by the Department in relation to assessment year 2010-11 is found in paragraphs 19 to 19.5, which read as follows: “19. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had created a fresh asset

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.

disallowing its claim for expenditure in the same amount. In relation to the Trust, the finding of the Tribunal, which is impugned in I.T.A.No.6/2021 filed by the Department in relation to assessment year 2010-11 is found in paragraphs 19 to 19.5, which read as follows: “19. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had created a fresh asset

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

disallowing its claim for expenditure in the same amount. In relation to the Trust, the finding of the Tribunal, which is impugned in I.T.A.No.6/2021 filed by the Department in relation to assessment year 2010-11 is found in paragraphs 19 to 19.5, which read as follows: “19. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had created a fresh asset

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

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

disallowing its claim for expenditure in the same amount. In relation to the Trust, the finding of the Tribunal, which is impugned in I.T.A.No.6/2021 filed by the Department in relation to assessment year 2010-11 is found in paragraphs 19 to 19.5, which read as follows: “19. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had created a fresh asset

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

2. The assessee is a company engaged in manufacture and sale of automobile tyres and tubes. For the I.T.A. No.272/13 -:3:- assessment year 2006-07, the assessing officer computed the total income of the asessee at Rs.66,15,44,477/-. While computing the total income of the assessee, an amount of Rs.5,09,01,000/- claimed as a deduction

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

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

2. M/s.Apollo Tyres Ltd., Kochi/Assessee is the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue is the respondent. The subject appeal is at the instance of Assessee from the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal') Cochin Bench in ITA No.430/Coch/2006 dated 24.08.2012. The substantial questions stated in the instant tax appeal relate to the Assessment Year

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

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

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

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.TOMCO ENGINEERING (P) LTD. vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Appeal is disposed of with the above

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

2. The assessing authority, by Annexure-B assessment order, disallowed the deduction as the assessee is debiting an expenditure which has not yet incurred. Relying on sections 36 and 37

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.

37,80,796/-. While the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was completed on 07.12.2017, by 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

THE RAHABILITATION PLANTATION LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The Subject Matter Of Appeal Relates To Assessment Year 2008-09 & The Controversies Relate To The Allowance Claimed By The Assessee Towards The Replantation Of Rubber Plants In An Area Where Rubber Trees Were Planted & Have Become Unproductive & Are Not In An Abandoned Area As Required By Rule 7A (2) Of The Income Tax Rules 1962, The Deduction Of Expenditure Incurred Towards Upkeep & Maintenance Of Rubber Saplings Till Maturity Or The Trees Yield & The Loss Incurred At The Rubber Sheet Factory.

2) is entitled to an allowance in respect of the cost of replacement of dead and useless rubber trees in the rubber plantation in an area not abandoned, subject to Section 10(31) of Act 1961. The upkeep and maintenance expenses incurred by the assessee till the maturity of rubber trees are revenue expenditures eligible for deduction under Section 37