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.

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, 1986, the Assessee surrendered tenancy rights prematurely and received a sum of 35 lacs. That sum was credited to the reserve and surplus account, which was disallowed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

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, 1986, the Assessee surrendered tenancy rights prematurely and received a sum of 35 lacs. That sum was credited to the reserve and surplus account, which was disallowed

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

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, 1986, the Assessee surrendered tenancy rights prematurely and received a sum of 35 lacs. That sum was credited to the reserve and surplus account, which was disallowed

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

50% on the actual amount spent is also granted by expanding the scope and applicability of Section 35(2AB). The provision in Section 35(2AB) since being an incentive provision, the Tribunal could have done well, by firstly reading the section literally and applying the case pleaded by the assessee to the unambiguous expression in Sec.35(2AB). The claim

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI 2 vs. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

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

3,50,88,588/- under first limb of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim

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

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing assessee bank's claim ofRs. 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

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:

Section 153C of the Act, the re-computation of return etc is illegal and unauthorized. 3.1 The other heads of the income of assessee scrutinized relate to the purchase of land at Sreerange, Maharastra. The assessing authority in the assessment order recorded the following findings: “1. The lease agreement do not have any legal validity as same is not executed

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:

Section 153C of the Act, the re-computation of return etc is illegal and unauthorized. 3.1 The other heads of the income of assessee scrutinized relate to the purchase of land at Sreerange, Maharastra. The assessing authority in the assessment order recorded the following findings: “1. The lease agreement do not have any legal validity as same is not executed

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 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

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

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

3) of the Income Tax Act dated 10/03/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly, invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 10/03/2015 is set aside with a direction to the Assessing Officer to redo the same