M/S. DEVICE DRIVEN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

disallowed under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The dis-allowance under Section 40(a)(i) was on the ground that the commission paid was fees for technical services on which tax is deductible at source, which the assessee failed to deduct. The amount shown as commission paid to the non-resident was added to I.T.A.No

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

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). The improvements to all these properties are a Revenue expenditure and hence the proviso is not applicable. He relies on the judgment of the Full Bench in Indus Motors Company Pvt. Ltd., v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2016 382 ITR 503 (KER)], wherein a reference was made to the Full Bench regarding the correctness

M/S. MINI MUTHOOTTU CREDIT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

section 36(1)(iii) has not been fulfilled. In other words, interest paid in respect of loan is not borrowed for the purpose of the business of the assessee but it has been borrowed for the acquisition of agricultural land which yielded exempted income not liable to tax. In our opinion, there is direct nexus between the interest bearing loans

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

iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, is the ITAT right in deciding the questions raised in (i) and (ii) above without adjudicating the ground based on which the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) disallowed the claim u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act? 3. Substantial Question No.1 relates

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

1 2010-11; dtd.19.03.2013 ITA NO.10/CIT(A), TVM/2013- 14 DT.30.01.2015 ITA NO.101/COCH/2015 DTD 03.11.2016 30/2017 2 2011-12; dtd.30.12.2013 ITA NO.115/TVM/CIT(A), TVM/2013-14 DT.28.11.2014 ITA NO.236/COCH/2015 DTD 03.11.2019 31/2017 3. ITA No.2/2017 and ITA No.30/2017 are treated as representative appeals for disposing of the four appeals. The questions of law raised in these appeals are excerpted ITA Nos.2, 6

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

6. The Assessing Officer rejected deduction claimed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on the whole of its income, whereas a part of income alone is amenable to Agricultural Income Tax Act. The agricultural income is excluded from the purview of Central Act and therefore is not part of computation

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

6. The Assessing Officer rejected deduction claimed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on the whole of its income, whereas a part of income alone is amenable to Agricultural Income Tax Act. The agricultural income is excluded from the purview of Central Act and therefore is not part of computation

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

6. The Assessing Officer rejected deduction claimed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on the whole of its income, whereas a part of income alone is amenable to Agricultural Income Tax Act. The agricultural income is excluded from the purview of Central Act and therefore is not part of computation

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

6. The Assessing Officer rejected deduction claimed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on the whole of its income, whereas a part of income alone is amenable to Agricultural Income Tax Act. The agricultural income is excluded from the purview of Central Act and therefore is not part of computation

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

6. The Assessing Officer rejected deduction claimed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on the whole of its income, whereas a part of income alone is amenable to Agricultural Income Tax Act. The agricultural income is excluded from the purview of Central Act and therefore is not part of computation

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.

6. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and (8, 9, 10 and 11) in the said agreement has undertaken the construction as per clause 5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

6. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and (8, 9, 10 and 11) in the said agreement has undertaken the construction as per clause 5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party

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

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

6. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and (8, 9, 10 and 11) in the said agreement has undertaken the construction as per clause 5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

6. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and (8, 9, 10 and 11) in the said agreement has undertaken the construction as per clause 5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

6. The 2nd party i.e. parties 1 to 3 and (8, 9, 10 and 11) in the said agreement has undertaken the construction as per clause 5 of the Deed dated 10.03.2009, incurring a cost of Rs.9.68 Crores for which the statement will be filed by the said parties 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 to the first party

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.

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 has been treated as income from

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.

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 has been treated as income from

APOLLO TYRES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowance of deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act?” The circumstances noted by the Assessing Officer in ITA No.225/2019 in respect of the present controversy are referred to and the same would be sufficient for consideration and ITA Nos.225 & 238/2019 -5- disposing of the other appeal as well. ITA No.225/2019 3. The assessee