BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

disallowance is contrary to law in-so far as assessment year 2013-14 is concerned? ITA No.15 of 2021 -4- 4. The circumstances relevant for disposing of the appeal are in a limited sphere and are stated thus: On 30th of September 2013, the assessee filed the returns of the assessment year 2013-2014 declaring Rs.14,12,120/- as taxable

HOTEL ALLIED TRADES PVT. LTD vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, we dismiss the IT Appeal by answering the

Bench: Us, The Appellant Raises The Following Questions Of Law:

1) held that capital expenditure incurred on a leased building was to be capitalized and depreciation would be allowed. Therefore, the amount of Rs.101.87 lakhs was disallowed. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same but directed the LD. AO to allow depreciation on capital component of expenditure. Aggrieved the assesee is in further appeal before us. 6.2. From the facts

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, COCHIN vs. APPOLLO TYRES LTD.

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

1 (2019) 419 ITR 100 I.T.A. No.172/2013 -5- The Assessing Officer treated the claim of Rs.28,67,407/- as capital loss and disallowed the claim. As regards advances given for acquisition of Revenue items amounting to Rs.2,32,93,575/- the Assessing Officer held that the claim is not allowable under Section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other words, income derived from different sources falling under

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other words, income derived from different sources falling under

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.

32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other words, income derived from different sources falling under

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other words, income derived from different sources falling under

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

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

32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other words, income derived from different sources falling under

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

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact

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

1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TX

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

1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact

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

1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact

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

1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

disallowed the claim of assessee for set off of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment years 1998-1999 and 2001-02. The assessee filed appeals against the order in Annexure A dated 31.1.2005 before the CIT (Appeals) and CIT (Appeals) through order in Annexure-B dated 16.8.2005 allowed the appeal of assessee and directed AO to allow carry forward

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN. vs. M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD., KALAMASSERRY

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

disallowed the claim of assessee for set off of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment years 1998-1999 and 2001-02. The assessee filed appeals against the order in Annexure A dated 31.1.2005 before the CIT (Appeals) and CIT (Appeals) through order in Annexure-B dated 16.8.2005 allowed the appeal of assessee and directed AO to allow carry forward