M/S. APPOLLO TYRES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

6. Mr Joseph Markos appearing for the assessee tried to convince this Court to take a different view by the very same argument put forward by the assessee before the Tribunal and the Assessing Officer. We have two difficulties in appreciating the argument of the assessee to accept the provision made towards commission payable to the agents through whom sales

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

43(B)(a) speaks of the sum payable by way of tax etc., the said provision is dealing with the amounts payable to the sovereign, but not amounts payable to the sovereign qua principal. We are therefore of the opinion that Section 438 cannot be invoked in making the assessment of the liability of the appellant under the Income

M/S. INDITRADE CAPITAL LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed, matter remitted to Income Tax

Bench: The Return Was Filed By The Assessee For The Subject Assessment Year. The Other Controversy Is

section 43(B) has not been considered by all the three authorities. Assuming for argument sake that the amount paid or deposited towards gratuity is not in the financial year 2009- 10 and also not with a notified authority, still under Sec.43B the amount so deposited or paid before the actual filing of the income tax return ought

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

43 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 118/2018 DATED 14-08-2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES) RESPONDENT/S: THE PONKUNNAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM 686 506 R1 BY ADV. DR.K.P.PRADEEP R1 BY ADV. SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SMT.NEENA ARIMBOOR

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

6. The AO through re-assessment order in Annexure-A dated 28.3.2002 treated the receipt from ATL as income from other sources, finally added the said income to the gross income of the assessee and refused the allowances/expenditure claimed by the assessee. The AO demanded Rs.2,99,20,093/- together with interest from the assessee. The assessee aggrieved by order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

6. The AO through re-assessment order in Annexure-A dated 28.3.2002 treated the receipt from ATL as income from other sources, finally added the said income to the gross income of the assessee and refused the allowances/expenditure claimed by the assessee. The AO demanded Rs.2,99,20,093/- together with interest from the assessee. The assessee aggrieved by order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

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

6. The AO through re-assessment order in Annexure-A dated 28.3.2002 treated the receipt from ATL as income from other sources, finally added the said income to the gross income of the assessee and refused the allowances/expenditure claimed by the assessee. The AO demanded Rs.2,99,20,093/- together with interest from the assessee. The assessee aggrieved by order

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

6. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and (8, 9, 10 and 11) in the said agreement has undertaken the construction as per clause 5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

6. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and (8, 9, 10 and 11) in the said agreement has undertaken the construction as per clause 5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

6. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and (8, 9, 10 and 11) in the said agreement has undertaken the construction as per clause 5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party

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.

6. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and (8, 9, 10 and 11) in the said agreement has undertaken the construction as per clause 5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party

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

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

6. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and (8, 9, 10 and 11) in the said agreement has undertaken the construction as per clause 5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party