THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

2. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties

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.

2. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

2. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties

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 (2011) 332 ITR 594 (Del) ITA No.44/2017 -9- revenue expenditure even by a liberal approach or going by the accountancy standards followed by the assessee. The assessee has capitalized the expenditure, and the permissible deduction in such circumstances is only by way of depreciation under Section 40(3)(i) of the Act. The abstract application of the reported judgments

MALANKARA PLANTATIONS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The Subject Matter Of Appeal Relates To Assessment Year 2011-12 & The Controversies Relate To The Allowance Claimed By The Assessee Towards The Replantation Of Rubber Plants In An Area Where Rubber Trees

disallowed both the claims. The assessee has been unsuccessful before the first and the second appellate authorities/Tribunal. The Tribunal followed the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rehabilitation Plantations Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax1 case. A Division Bench of this Court referred the issues arising under Rule 7A(2) of the Income Tax Rules and also the deduction

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.

251 CTR 343 (Ker.) ITA NO. 37 OF 2018 -4- “In the computation of business income under Rule 7A of the Rule 1962, the assessee under Rule 7A(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