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.

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

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

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 of the set-off of the brought forward losses against the deemed income allowed by the assessing authority in its original order and whether or not such disallowance is contrary

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

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

b) the delegation is in the regular course of business, or (c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections

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.

b) the delegation is in the regular course of business, or (c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

b) the delegation is in the regular course of business, or (c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections

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

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

b) the delegation is in the regular course of business, or (c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

b) the delegation is in the regular course of business, or (c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections

SUDARSANAN P.S vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

5 8. We have considered the rival contentions. Admittedly the assessee had failed to produce the books of account for verification and the assessee accepted assessment to be carried out on the basis of accounts and records available with the assessing officer. When the assessee failed to produce the books of account, the officer was justified in assessing the income

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. M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTD

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

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

b) whether the Tribunal had erred in granting deduction under Section 35D regarding short-term loan, in view of the Explanation to Section 35D(3) which refers only to long-term borrowings, and (c) whether the Tribunal had erred in directing deduction under Section 80HH and 80-I on the miscellaneous income of Rs.26,64,113 being income on sale

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

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

5. Question no.2 deals with the claim of assessee towards debts and advances written off. The assessee claimed a total deduction of Rs.8,74,73,974/- out of which a sum of Rs.6,13,12,992/- related to the trade debts and the remaining amount represented two categories as follows: 1. Advances given for acquisition of capital assets - Rs.28

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

5. The following substantial questions of law are raised for consideration: 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the disallowance of service tax payable under Section 43B, particularly when the same was not charged to the Profit and Loss Account or claimed as a deduction in the computation

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