SUDARSANAN P.S vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowing the claim under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-payment of TDS under ITA NO. 70 OF 2017 4 Section 194H of the Act is justified. 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in restoring the addition of Rs.3,26,380/- made by the assessing officer under Section 69C of the Act. 5

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 43A on actual payment restricted to : 4,72,34,591 6 Disallowance of claim of MTM loss on forward contract as deduction : 98,10,765 ITA No.44/2017 -5- 7 Disallowance of claim of prepaid expenses as deduction : 5

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

section 115BBE to be prospective in nature. 5. Whether the Tribunal and the Principal CIT have erred or not in holding disallowance

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.G.T.N.INDUSTRIES LTD.

The appeal stands dismissed accordingly

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

disallowance on account of 80HHC deduction" noted in paragraph 7 of its order based on the decision reported in 248 ITR 372 ad is not the interference and the decision relied on wrong and against the decision reported in 295 ITR 228 (SC)? I.T.A. No.1699/2009 -4- 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

P.K.ABDUL KHADER & BROTHERS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowing the Dealer’s claim or special rebate of purchase tax paid under Section 6(2) of the KVAT Act on the closing stock held by the Dealer on 31.03.2014. As noted earlier, with effect from 01.04.2014, the Dealer opted for payment of compounded rate of tax. All three authorities have held that the proposal to reverse the special rebate

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM vs. M/S.SAHYADRI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCEITY LIMITED

The appeal is disposed of as indicated above

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

Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) of Rs. 1,42,23,305/- and ITA Nos.68/2017, 196/2019, 63/2019, 1/2018, 219/2019 -8- return of income at Rs.1,62,080/-. 5. The Assessing Officer first disallowed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.SAHYADRI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.

The appeal is disposed of as indicated above

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

Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) of Rs. 1,42,23,305/- and ITA Nos.68/2017, 196/2019, 63/2019, 1/2018, 219/2019 -8- return of income at Rs.1,62,080/-. 5. The Assessing Officer first disallowed

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

Section 36(1)(iii) would not apply. 5. The counsel for the appellant Sri.Anil D.Nair argues that the Dispute Resolution Panel was not justified in treating interest of Rs.92,28,405/- on working capital loans availed from banks as incurred for the acquisition of assets and disallowing

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

section 5 of the Electricity Duty Act, 1963." Applying the same logic, in the instant case, the liability of Service Tax payable cannot be disallowed

ALL KOSHYS ALL SPICES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed as above

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

disallowance of Rs.18,14,139/- under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act holding that the amount paid towards shipping charges attract TDS under section 194(i) of the Act and that the assessee has failed to make TDS on the said payment. ITA No.23/2021 -:4:- (2) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and in the facts

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

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

5. Assessee claimed that the loan advanced by it to the subsidiary was on consideration of business expediency and that was the reason for the loss of Rs.5.09 crores for the AY 2006-07. Therefore, it claimed deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. However, the assessing officer disallowed

M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

5. The assessee filed, on 31.10.2007, return for the assessment year 2007-2008. The assessee returned total income of Rs.2,63,24,480/- representing income received under 'interest' head. The assessee claimed that the income received from the sale of crude palm oil and related products constitutes agricultural income and is not liable for tax under the Act. The assessee

M/S OIL PALM INDIA LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

5. The assessee filed, on 31.10.2007, return for the assessment year 2007-2008. The assessee returned total income of Rs.2,63,24,480/- representing income received under 'interest' head. The assessee claimed that the income received from the sale of crude palm oil and related products constitutes agricultural income and is not liable for tax under the Act. The assessee

M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

5. The assessee filed, on 31.10.2007, return for the assessment year 2007-2008. The assessee returned total income of Rs.2,63,24,480/- representing income received under 'interest' head. The assessee claimed that the income received from the sale of crude palm oil and related products constitutes agricultural income and is not liable for tax under the Act. The assessee

M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

5. The assessee filed, on 31.10.2007, return for the assessment year 2007-2008. The assessee returned total income of Rs.2,63,24,480/- representing income received under 'interest' head. The assessee claimed that the income received from the sale of crude palm oil and related products constitutes agricultural income and is not liable for tax under the Act. The assessee

M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

5. The assessee filed, on 31.10.2007, return for the assessment year 2007-2008. The assessee returned total income of Rs.2,63,24,480/- representing income received under 'interest' head. The assessee claimed that the income received from the sale of crude palm oil and related products constitutes agricultural income and is not liable for tax under the Act. The assessee