K.R. RAZIYA, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Details Of Orders Of Assessment Etc. Are Stated In The Following Table:

disallowed Rs. 5,60,000 Cost of machinery Rs.75,50,000 Total income assessed Rs.87,10,000 4. The assessee raised two principal objections, one under Section

K.R.RAIZA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Details Of Orders Of Assessment Etc. Are Stated In The Following Table:

disallowed Rs. 5,60,000 Cost of machinery Rs.75,50,000 Total income assessed Rs.87,10,000 4. The assessee raised two principal objections, one under Section

K.M. FATHIMA, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

disallowed as discussed above Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs.2,47,043/- Gross Total Income Rs.3,18,445/- Less: Deduction u/s 80L Rs. 12,000/- Total Income Rs.3,06,445/- Rounded off u/s 288A Rs.3,06,450/- 2.3 Thus, by the assessment order dated 30.12.2011, the actual income of the assessee was rounded up to Rs.3,06,450/- . For the other

K.M. FATHIMA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowed as discussed above Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs.2,47,043/- Gross Total Income Rs.3,18,445/- Less: Deduction u/s 80L Rs. 12,000/- Total Income Rs.3,06,445/- Rounded off u/s 288A Rs.3,06,450/- 2.3 Thus, by the assessment order dated 30.12.2011, the actual income of the assessee was rounded up to Rs.3,06,450/- . For the other

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

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

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959 for 50 years, under which, the annual rent was paid by the Lessee to the Lessor. The lease would have continued till 2009. However, during the relevant previous year i.e. in March

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959 for 50 years, under which, the annual rent was paid by the Lessee to the Lessor. The lease would have continued till 2009. However, during the relevant previous year i.e. in March

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959 for 50 years, under which, the annual rent was paid by the Lessee to the Lessor. The lease would have continued till 2009. However, during the relevant previous year i.e. in March

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

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

section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959 for 50 years, under which, the annual rent was paid by the Lessee to the Lessor. The lease would have continued till 2009. However, during the relevant previous year i.e. in March

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.

section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959 for 50 years, under which, the annual rent was paid by the Lessee to the Lessor. The lease would have continued till 2009. However, during the relevant previous year i.e. in March

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S CHOICE FOUNDATION

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

50 ITR (Trib.) 355 (Mum-Tri.)] had held that the building fund is forming part of the corpus fund eligible for deduction u/s 11(1)(d) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the initiation of the proceedings u/s 263 of the I.T.Act for disallowing the claim u/s 11(1)(d) of the corpus donation on the ground that it is not voluntary

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.

The appeal is allowed in part, answering question no

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

50,17,000/ as expenditure on account of payment of pension? 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in following the decision of the Tribunal in ITA 110/Coch/01 for assessment year 1997-98 wherein the facts are basically different from the facts of this case?” 4.1 At the outset we notice