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

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 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

36(1)(viia). Similarly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the revaluation of unquoted securities adopted by the assessee. I.T.A. No.178/2009 -3- 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 Tribunal partly allowed the appeal

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

section 36(1)(iii), hence there is no infirmity therein. As regards question No. (2) it may be stated that the assessee established a phosphoric acid project as an extension to its present business activities and for that purpose obtained a foreign currency loan from IDBI which in turn was refinanced by COFACE subject to the assessee paying finance charges

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

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” 3.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of bad debts and bad and doubtful debts

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

section 36(1).” 4. So far as the claim of deduction of 7.5% of the total income, there is no condition that it should be in respect of any rural branch. All types of banks described under sub clause (a) of clause (viia) are entitled to seek deduction of an amount of not ITA No.63 of 2017 6 exceeding

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

disallowing its claim for expenditure in the same amount. In relation to the Trust, the finding of the Tribunal, which is impugned in I.T.A.No.6/2021 filed by the Department in relation to assessment year 2010-11 is found in paragraphs 19 to 19.5, which read as follows: “19. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had created a fresh asset

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.

disallowing its claim for expenditure in the same amount. In relation to the Trust, the finding of the Tribunal, which is impugned in I.T.A.No.6/2021 filed by the Department in relation to assessment year 2010-11 is found in paragraphs 19 to 19.5, which read as follows: “19. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had created a fresh asset

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

disallowing its claim for expenditure in the same amount. In relation to the Trust, the finding of the Tribunal, which is impugned in I.T.A.No.6/2021 filed by the Department in relation to assessment year 2010-11 is found in paragraphs 19 to 19.5, which read as follows: “19. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had created a fresh asset

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

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

disallowing its claim for expenditure in the same amount. In relation to the Trust, the finding of the Tribunal, which is impugned in I.T.A.No.6/2021 filed by the Department in relation to assessment year 2010-11 is found in paragraphs 19 to 19.5, which read as follows: “19. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had created a fresh asset

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

disallowing its claim for expenditure in the same amount. In relation to the Trust, the finding of the Tribunal, which is impugned in I.T.A.No.6/2021 filed by the Department in relation to assessment year 2010-11 is found in paragraphs 19 to 19.5, which read as follows: “19. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had created a fresh asset

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

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

2. The appellant is engaged in the trading of textile materials, manufacturing and trading of jewellery. The return of income filed for the Annual Year 2010-11 by the appellant was processed under Section 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act ('the Act' for short) was issued

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

disallowed the depreciation claimed. The Assessing Officer adjusted the actual cost of assets of the assessee in the assessment year 2009- 10 as follows: STATEMENT DEPRECIATION AS ON 31/03/2009 SHOWING DEDUCTION OF SUBSIDY RECEIVED: - Block of asset WDV as on 01/04/2008 as per 143(3) order dated 15/12/2010 for A.Y 2008-09 Subsidy Gross Value after subsidy 1 Buildings

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

2. M/s.Apollo Tyres Ltd., Kochi/Assessee is the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue is the respondent. The subject appeal is at the instance of Assessee from the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal') Cochin Bench in ITA No.430/Coch/2006 dated 24.08.2012. The substantial questions stated in the instant tax appeal relate to the Assessment Year

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. MINI MUTHOOTTU CREDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2) of the IT Act and the assessment that followed, it was assessed to a total income of Rs.2,02,75,110/-. In arriving at the total income, the assessing officer disallowed a sum of Rs.90,73,279/- being the interest that was paid by the appellant on long-term borrowings. The disallowance by the assessing authority

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

2) dated 23.09.2013 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued by the Assessing Officer. In the appeals, the Court is concerned with an issue arising under Section 43B of the Act, which reads thus: “Certain deductions to be only actual payment. 43B. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, a deduction otherwise