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.

45, it cannot be taxed at all. (See S. G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 83 1TR 700 (SC). (17) Furthermore, it would be illogical and against the language of section 56 to hold that everything that is exempted from capital gains by the statute could be taxed as a casual or non-recurring receipt under section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

45, it cannot be taxed at all. (See S. G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 83 1TR 700 (SC). (17) Furthermore, it would be illogical and against the language of section 56 to hold that everything that is exempted from capital gains by the statute could be taxed as a casual or non-recurring receipt 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.

45, it cannot be taxed at all. (See S. G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 83 1TR 700 (SC). (17) Furthermore, it would be illogical and against the language of section 56 to hold that everything that is exempted from capital gains by the statute could be taxed as a casual or non-recurring receipt under section

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. USHA MURUGAN

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

45,266/-. The return filed for the subject Assessment Year was taken up for scrutiny and resulted in issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The notice refers to alleged impermissible deduction of Rs.7,72,66,051/- received and transferred by the assessee, to agents towards incentive for the prize money realised from the tickets sold

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

disallowed both by the Tribunal and the authorities as well in the orders referred to in the tabular statement. Hence, the appeals at the instance of the assessee. 3.2 The Tribunal while rejecting the deduction under Section 80P(2) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for consideration of assessee's entitlement for deduction as a rural land development bank

K.A.RAUG vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowance of agricultural income in these appeals as well, for the above discussion, is answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. (b) Investment in M/s.Tristar investments, Bangalore. 10. The question of law formulated at the time of hearing reads as follows: “Whether the Authorities and the Tribunal are justified for including Tristar investments in the computation

K.A.RAUF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX

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

disallowance of agricultural income in these appeals as well, for the above discussion, is answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. (b) Investment in M/s.Tristar investments, Bangalore. 10. The question of law formulated at the time of hearing reads as follows: “Whether the Authorities and the Tribunal are justified for including Tristar investments in the computation

K.A.RAUF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowance of agricultural income in these appeals as well, for the above discussion, is answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. (b) Investment in M/s.Tristar investments, Bangalore. 10. The question of law formulated at the time of hearing reads as follows: “Whether the Authorities and the Tribunal are justified for including Tristar investments in the computation

K.A.RAUF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowance of agricultural income in these appeals as well, for the above discussion, is answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. (b) Investment in M/s.Tristar investments, Bangalore. 10. The question of law formulated at the time of hearing reads as follows: “Whether the Authorities and the Tribunal are justified for including Tristar investments in the computation

K.A.RAUF, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX,

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

disallowance of agricultural income in these appeals as well, for the above discussion, is answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. (b) Investment in M/s.Tristar investments, Bangalore. 10. The question of law formulated at the time of hearing reads as follows: “Whether the Authorities and the Tribunal are justified for including Tristar investments in the computation

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

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

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

disallowance confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and treating ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 17 the receipts from ATL as income from other sources, the assessee filed IT Appeal No.346/Coch/2003. Through the order in Annexure-C the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed and the Tribunal held that the lease rental received by the assessee from ATL under rehabilitation scheme

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

disallowance confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and treating ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 17 the receipts from ATL as income from other sources, the assessee filed IT Appeal No.346/Coch/2003. Through the order in Annexure-C the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed and the Tribunal held that the lease rental received by the assessee from ATL under rehabilitation scheme

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

disallowance confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and treating ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 17 the receipts from ATL as income from other sources, the assessee filed IT Appeal No.346/Coch/2003. Through the order in Annexure-C the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed and the Tribunal held that the lease rental received by the assessee from ATL under rehabilitation scheme