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

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

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 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) as the said amount was not offered for taxation. The Assessing Officer rejected the alternative claim for deduction under Section 37

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

section 37(1) of the Act. However, the assessing officer disallowed the loss. It was held that the expenditure incurred

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 made in preceding year was confirmed by the Tribunal in ITA No.426/Coch/2006. By the immediately following the said order of the Tribunal, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the addition made by the AO.” 9.1 The excerpted finding of the Tribunal in the case on hand takes us to the consideration

M/S. KERALA STATE CO-OP.AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Section 37 of the Act which is a special fund set up purely as a welfare measure for the benefit of employees which is also approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies? f. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law the Appellate Tribunal was justified in not allowing deduction of the contributions made

M/S.TOMCO ENGINEERING (P) LTD. vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Appeal is disposed of with the above

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

disallowed the deduction as the assessee is debiting an expenditure which has not yet incurred. Relying on sections 36 and 37

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.

Section 37 of Act 1961.” 4. The assessee raises the following substantial questions of law: “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in disallowing

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

disallowing the said payment from being deducted as an expenditure. 20. It is not in dispute, as held in the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chemical Constructions [(2000) 243 ITR 858 (Mad.)] and in Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1997) 225 ITR 383 (SC)] that when penalty is paid, comprising of elements of compensation

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

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

disallowing the said payment from being deducted as an expenditure. 20. It is not in dispute, as held in the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chemical Constructions [(2000) 243 ITR 858 (Mad.)] and in Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1997) 225 ITR 383 (SC)] that when penalty is paid, comprising of elements of compensation

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

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

disallowing the said payment from being deducted as an expenditure. 20. It is not in dispute, as held in the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chemical Constructions [(2000) 243 ITR 858 (Mad.)] and in Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1997) 225 ITR 383 (SC)] that when penalty is paid, comprising of elements of compensation

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

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

disallowing the said payment from being deducted as an expenditure. 20. It is not in dispute, as held in the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chemical Constructions [(2000) 243 ITR 858 (Mad.)] and in Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1997) 225 ITR 383 (SC)] that when penalty is paid, comprising of elements of compensation

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

disallowing the said payment from being deducted as an expenditure. 20. It is not in dispute, as held in the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chemical Constructions [(2000) 243 ITR 858 (Mad.)] and in Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1997) 225 ITR 383 (SC)] that when penalty is paid, comprising of elements of compensation

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

disallowing the said payment from being deducted as an expenditure. 20. It is not in dispute, as held in the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chemical Constructions [(2000) 243 ITR 858 (Mad.)] and in Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1997) 225 ITR 383 (SC)] that when penalty is paid, comprising of elements of compensation

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.

37,80,796/-. While the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was completed on 07.12.2017, by disallowing

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

Section 37 of Act 1961.” 4. The assessee raises the following substantial questions of law: “1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in confirming the disallowance

M/S.ESCAPADE RESORTS PVT.LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part as indicated above

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii (For Short, ‘Cit(Appeals)’) & Through Annexure-C Order Dated 02.12.2013, The Appeal Was Allowed In Part. The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (For Short, 'The Tribunal') & Through The Order Impugned In The Appeal

37 of the Act also. Moreover, this expenditure has not been incurred during the relevant previous year. Considering all these, claim of the assessee is rejected. However, since it is a capital asset coming under Plant and Machinery, depreciation @15% is granted on it. The resultant disallowance comes

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

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. 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. 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