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.

3. For the assessment year 2009-10, the appellant did not file any return of income. Believing that the appellant had income chargeable to tax that had escaped assessment, the Department issued a notice under Section 148 of the IT Act to the appellant on 6.2.2012 requiring the appellant to furnish a return of income within 30 days of receipt

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

1 Disallowance of 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 : 26,97,79,538 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

M/S. APPOLO TYRES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

disallowed the set-off claimed by the assessee I.T.A. No.216/2013 -6- under Sec 70 (3) of the Act. 4.2 The reasoning of the Assessing Officer is that whatever income is exempt under different clauses of Section 10, such income shall be removed from the purview of income before computation of the total income of an assessee. Hence, an income that

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

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.

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

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

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

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

section 194C of the Income Tax Act, towards the cost of the said constructions as per clause above which will be accounted by the first party in the books of accounts of the Trust. 4. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and 8 confirm that they have not further claim from the amount of Rs.3.75 crores

M/S. JOYALUKKAS INDIA LTD, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial questions

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

3) and 144C (13), an appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The issue that came up for consideration before the Tribunal was regarding the disallowance of an amount of Rs.92,28,405/- under proviso to Section 36(1

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TVM vs. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TVM

Appeal stands dismissed

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee under I.T.A. No.118/2009 -3- Section 36(1)(viia). The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the appeal was allowed in part. In the appeal filed by the assessee before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, through Annexure-C order, the claim of the assessee under Section 36(1)(viia) was allowed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI 2 vs. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

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

disallowed the claim u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act? 3. Substantial Question No.1 relates to the claim of deduction at 7.5% of the total income as allowance under the first limb of Section

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 of depreciation made

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

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

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

disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1) (vii) amounting to Rs.22,78,703/-? ii) in allowing the bad written off under Section 36(1) (vii) amounting to Rs.22,78,703/- 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in United Commercial

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

Section 36(1)(vii) cannot be the claim of the assessee for bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii), and the claim in the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) be disallowed? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of bad debts and bad and doubtful

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.

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 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In the order of the Principal Commissioner, it was noticed that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.

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 36(1)(viia). The assessee filed ITA NO. 1065 OF 2009 - 3

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the order of ITA No.15 of 2021 -3- the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and in the facts of the case in not considering the aspect

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