K.A.RAUF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Section 260A of the Act. The question is answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. The same question of ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -19- disallowance

K.A.RAUG vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Section 260A of the Act. The question is answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. The same question of ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -19- disallowance

K.A.RAUF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Section 260A of the Act. The question is answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. The same question of ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -19- disallowance

K.A.RAUF, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX,

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

Section 260A of the Act. The question is answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. The same question of ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -19- disallowance

K.A.RAUF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX

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

Section 260A of the Act. The question is answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. The same question of ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -19- disallowance

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

disallowance. Thus, the assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). 3. It may be necessary

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 260A of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). The following substantial questions of law are raised by the Revenue: “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law - i) in holding that the disallowance

M/S. KUNNEL ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS (P) LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed and remanded with the observations as

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

Section 260A of the Act. 5. The following substantial questions of law are raised for consideration: 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the disallowance

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KITEX GARMENTS LTD., KIZHAKKAMBALAM

The appeal stands dismissed accordingly

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). The I.T.A. No.49/2009 -3- assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the appeal was allowed. The Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal through order in Annexure-C dismissed the appeal. Hence, the instant Tax Appeal

THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRICHUR vs. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD.,TRICHUR

Appeal stands dismissed

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

260A of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). The following substantial questions of law are raised by the revenue: “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in the light of the relevant provisions especially proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) cannot be the claim of the assessee for bad debts

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRICHUR vs. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,TRICHUR.

Appeal stands dismissed

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). The following substantial questions of law are raised by the revenue: “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision in British Paints (188 ITR 44) should not the Tribunal have sustained the disallowance

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam (for short 'the Revenue') is the appellant in these Tax Appeals. M/s.Meenakshy Enterprises, a proprietary concern, represented by T. Murugan, since deceased, represented by his wife Usha Murugan, is the respondent in these appeals (for short referred to as 'the assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.

The appeal is allowed in part, answering question no

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

disallowing payment of pension is incorrect and having regard to the actual payment of pension which is not doubted in any manner, allowed the claim of assessee. We have taken note of the reasoning in the orders of CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal and are of the view that the substantial question does not merit requirements of Section 260A

M/S.INDIA COFFEE BOARD WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowed and assessed under Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s.194J; (b) Interest incomes received from the assessee's members totalling Rs.16,93,3334/- was omitted to be taxed”. 2. Appellant had filed a return of income for the year in question declaring a loss of Rs.2,97,446/-. The assessment was completed by the assessing officer demanding a total income

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 260A of the Act. The Revenue raises the following substantial questions of law in the appeal: I.T.A. No. 772/2009 -4- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Tribunal is right in law: (a) In interfering with the disallowance

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

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

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