BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

2) of section 115BBE to be prospective in nature. 5. Whether the Tribunal and the Principal CIT have erred or not in holding disallowance of the set-off of the brought forward losses against the deemed income allowed by the assessing authority in its original order and whether or not such disallowance is contrary

M/S. KERALA STATE CO-OP.AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

disallowed both by the Tribunal and the authorities as well in the orders referred to in the tabular statement. Hence, the appeals at the instance of the assessee. 3.2 The Tribunal while rejecting the deduction under Section 80P(2) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for consideration of assessee's entitlement for deduction as a rural land development bank

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. THE PONKUNNAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

Appeals are allowed and remanded back

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

disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee is primarily engaged in the business of banking. Having regard to such a finding, it was recorded that by operation of Section 80P(4), the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act. The assessee aggrieved by the said order filed appeal before

P.K.ABDUL KHADER & BROTHERS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowing the Dealer’s claim or special rebate of purchase tax paid under Section 6(2) of the KVAT Act on the closing stock held by the Dealer on 31.03.2014. As noted earlier, with effect from 01.04.2014, the Dealer opted for payment of compounded rate of tax. All three authorities have held that the proposal to reverse the special rebate

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

7 persons) together had completed the construction in the F.Y. 2010-11 as evidenced by clause 2 of the agreement dated 01/06/2010 for a total amount of Rs.9.68 crores and vide clause 3 of the said agreement it was agreed to appropriate the contract amount from the amount already paid to the parties. Contrary to this, the Assessing Officer

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.

7 persons) together had completed the construction in the F.Y. 2010-11 as evidenced by clause 2 of the agreement dated 01/06/2010 for a total amount of Rs.9.68 crores and vide clause 3 of the said agreement it was agreed to appropriate the contract amount from the amount already paid to the parties. Contrary to this, the Assessing Officer

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

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

7 persons) together had completed the construction in the F.Y. 2010-11 as evidenced by clause 2 of the agreement dated 01/06/2010 for a total amount of Rs.9.68 crores and vide clause 3 of the said agreement it was agreed to appropriate the contract amount from the amount already paid to the parties. Contrary to this, the Assessing Officer

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

7 persons) together had completed the construction in the F.Y. 2010-11 as evidenced by clause 2 of the agreement dated 01/06/2010 for a total amount of Rs.9.68 crores and vide clause 3 of the said agreement it was agreed to appropriate the contract amount from the amount already paid to the parties. Contrary to this, the Assessing Officer

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

7 persons) together had completed the construction in the F.Y. 2010-11 as evidenced by clause 2 of the agreement dated 01/06/2010 for a total amount of Rs.9.68 crores and vide clause 3 of the said agreement it was agreed to appropriate the contract amount from the amount already paid to the parties. Contrary to this, the Assessing Officer

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

7 Sl.No . Assessment year Depreciation of Disallowance 1 2008-2009 Rs.48,04,760/- 2 2009-2010 Rs.12,65,118/- 4.2 The Assessing Officer, for the assessment year 2009-10 reduced the subsidy amounting to Rs.13,75,00,885/- received between 1996 and 2000 from the gross value of capital assets of the assessee amounting to Rs.15,44,93,432/-. Thus

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

SUDARSANAN P.S vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2 to Section 93 of the Amendment Act will come into effect from 01.04.2007, Section 54 of the Finance Act, 2007 which amends Section 194C of the Act specifies that the amendment in 194C will be substituted with effect from 01.06.2007. Thus, it is beyond the pale of any dispute, that the liability for deducting tax at source for payments

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

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

2. Did not the Tribunal err in deleting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source u/s.194H/194G of the Income Tax Act from the payment of commission to sub- agents? 3. Should not the Tribunal have considered the issues raised (declined to be considered in paragraph 12 of the order on merits

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

ALL KOSHYS ALL SPICES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed as above

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

2) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and in the facts of the case in holding that the amount of Rs.18,14,139/- paid/reimbursed by the assessee to M/s.Seven Ocean Shipping Company towards shipping charges attract TDS under section 194I of the Act? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate

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

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

disallowance of broken period interest in respect of securities purchased. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the specific provision of Section 40A(7

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.G.T.N.INDUSTRIES LTD.

The appeal stands dismissed accordingly

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

section 14A is justified in this case; iii) in holding that the disallowance is not justified? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law and fact in interfering with the "another disallowance on account of 80HHC deduction" noted in paragraph 7