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.

5. The Assessing Officer first disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer concludes that the assessee earned income from interest on deposits from members and deposits made in scheduled Banks from trading commodities and interest from call money depositors. In view of the view taken by the Assessing Officer, the said income

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

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

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

2(v) of NABARD ITA Nos.2, 6, 30 & 31/2017 -8- Act, 1981 or a 'Co-operative Credit Society' in accordance with Section 5(ccii) of Part V of Banking Regulations Act, 1949? d. Whether the Appellate Tribunal committed an error in failing to appreciate that the Appellant is a 'State Land Development Bank' as defined under NABARD Act, 1981 which

M/S. NILESHWAR RANGEKALLU CHETHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI SAHAKARANA SANGHAM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

disallowed on the ground that the claim for deduction had not been made in a valid return filed by the appellant in terms of the IT Act. It was the stand of the Assessing Officer that in view of the provisions of Section 80A(5) of the IT Act, the claim for deduction could not be considered

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

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 vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

2. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties

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.

2. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties

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

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

2. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

2. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

2. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties

M/S.INDIA COFFEE BOARD WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowed and assessed under Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s.194J; (b) Interest incomes received from the assessee's members totalling Rs.16,93,3334/- was omitted to be taxed”. 2. Appellant had filed a return of income for the year in question declaring a loss of Rs.2,97,446/-. The assessment was completed by the assessing officer demanding a total income

SUDARSANAN P.S vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in restoring the addition of Rs.32,88,677/- made by the assessing officer on account of the dis- allowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-payment of TDS under Section 194C of the Act. 3. Whether the addition of Rs.8,86,790/- made by the assessing officer as affirmed

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

Section 43(1). 2 (2022) 2 SCC 603 3(MANU/MH/1197/2019) ITA Nos.62&65/2018 16 9. Without prejudice to the main argument of applicability of Explanation and proviso to 43(1) of the Act, it is alternatively argued that orders impugned in the appeal are illegal and computation of written down value on a broad spectrum of all the assets

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

2 Claim of preoperative expenditure disallowed in the assessment made u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C dt. 18/02/2015 was directed to be deleted : 4,70,07,847 3 Disallowance of claim of additional weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) restricted to : 94,98,220 4 Disallowance of claim of loss on sale of investment in shares as deduction : 4,07,24,151 5

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

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

Section 80 1A of the Income Tax Act ? Learned counsel appearing for the parties have confined their submissions to substantial question nos.1 and 2. 4. Substantial question no.1 deals with payment of bonus by the assessee in the Assessment Year 2003-04 claimable and paid in the Assessment Year 2002-03. The Department, raising similar questions of law, filed

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

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law and fact in interfering with the "another 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 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