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.

7 of the Mult-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (for short, ‘MSCS Act’). The assessee extended its operation to the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The assessee, on 20.09.2012, filed the return of income for the assessment year 2012- 13. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

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 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

section 14A is justified in this case; iii) in holding that the disallowance is not justified? 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

ALL KOSHYS ALL SPICES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed as above

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

disallowance on an earlier assessment year cannot bind the assessee's claim for the subsequent years. In the decision in Municipal Corpn., Thane v. Vidyut Metallics Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC 688, it was observed that as a general rule, each years assessment is final only for that year and does not govern later years because it determines

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

section 43A on actual payment restricted to : 4,72,34,591 6 Disallowance of claim of MTM loss on forward contract as deduction : 98,10,765 ITA No.44/2017 -5- 7

HOTEL ALLIED TRADES PVT. LTD vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, we dismiss the IT Appeal by answering the

Bench: Us, The Appellant Raises The Following Questions Of Law:

disallowed. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same but directed the LD. AO to allow depreciation on capital component of expenditure. Aggrieved the assesee is in further appeal before us. 6.2. From the facts, it emerges that the assessee has incurred expenditure on existing building which is erected on leased land. This being so, Explanation-1 would apply since

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

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

disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source u/s.194H/194G of the Income Tax Act from the payment of commission to sub- agents? 3. Should not the Tribunal have considered the issues raised (declined to be considered in paragraph 12 of the order on merits?” 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties have, in great

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR vs. THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,

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

disallowance of broken period interest in respect of securities purchased. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the specific provision of Section 40A(7

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

section 260A of the Act. 6. We heard Senior Advocate Joseph Markose instructed by Adv. Sharad Joseph Kodianthara, on behalf of the I.T.A. No.272/13 -:6:- assessee and the Adv. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the Department. 7. Appellant had entered into the foreign exchange forward contract with Citi Bank in January 2006. The purpose for which the loan

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

7. Mr.Anil D.Nair contends that the revenue has accepted the ITA No.14 of 2018 and batch cases 12 formula decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Rule-7 and the Department has accepted the claim of assessee in all entirety for the preceding assessment years. Therefore, for the subject assessment years as well, the same view ought

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

7. Mr.Anil D.Nair contends that the revenue has accepted the ITA No.14 of 2018 and batch cases 12 formula decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Rule-7 and the Department has accepted the claim of assessee in all entirety for the preceding assessment years. Therefore, for the subject assessment years as well, the same view ought

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

7. Mr.Anil D.Nair contends that the revenue has accepted the ITA No.14 of 2018 and batch cases 12 formula decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Rule-7 and the Department has accepted the claim of assessee in all entirety for the preceding assessment years. Therefore, for the subject assessment years as well, the same view ought

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

7. Mr.Anil D.Nair contends that the revenue has accepted the ITA No.14 of 2018 and batch cases 12 formula decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Rule-7 and the Department has accepted the claim of assessee in all entirety for the preceding assessment years. Therefore, for the subject assessment years as well, the same view ought

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

7. Mr.Anil D.Nair contends that the revenue has accepted the ITA No.14 of 2018 and batch cases 12 formula decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Rule-7 and the Department has accepted the claim of assessee in all entirety for the preceding assessment years. Therefore, for the subject assessment years as well, the same view ought

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

disallowance is contrary to law in-so far as assessment year 2013-14 is concerned? ITA No.15 of 2021 -4- 4. The circumstances relevant for disposing of the appeal are in a limited sphere and are stated thus: On 30th of September 2013, the assessee filed the returns of the assessment year 2013-2014 declaring Rs.14,12,120/- as taxable

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

Section 260A of the Act, when a patent error is pointed out in the circumstances considered by the Tribunal, the assessee should be afforded an opportunity before the Tribunal to canvass what the claim was and why the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is illegal and unsustainable. 7

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. 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

disallowance has to be set aside. Therefore, the Tribunal went wrong in dismissing the appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the revenue Sri.Navneeth N.Nath submits that the decision of the Full Bench as well as that of the appellant himself cannot be applied in full vigour to the facts of this case, as the Full Bench has held that