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. M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTD

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

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

7 (1989 3 SCC 329 ITA No.44/2017 -13- for business purpose irrespective of what may be the result of using the capital which the assessee has borrowed." Actual cost of an asset has no relevancy in relation to Section 36(1)(iii). The proviso inserted in section 36(1)(iii) by the Finance Act, 2003, with effect from April 1

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the order of ITA No.15 of 2021 -3- the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and in the facts of the case in not considering the aspect

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

section 36(1).” 4. So far as the claim of deduction of 7.5% of the total income, there is no condition that it should be in respect of any rural branch. All types of banks described under sub clause (a) of clause (viia) are entitled to seek deduction of an amount of not ITA No.63 of 2017 6 exceeding

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

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

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:

b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is any material or evidence on record to justify the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the sum of Rs.1,01,87,412/- cannot be allowed as deduction for the assessment year in question? 3. We have heard Sri.Abraham Joseph Markos, the learned Counsel for the appellant

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

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

disallowed” 3.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of bad debts and bad and doubtful debts is an allowable deduction? ITA NO. 1065 OF 2009 - 4 - 3. Substantial question no.1 is on the entitlement of assessee on the payment of broken period interest. The question is covered in favour of the assessee and against

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DHANALAXMI BANK LTD

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

disallowing an amount of Rs.1,80,04,849/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, the said order was set aside by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur, by an order dated 18.12.2018 finding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In the order of the Principal Commissioner, it was noticed that

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

B dated 25.03.2010, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The further appeal befor ITAT resulted in dismissal through the common judgment impugned in the appeal. It is useful and convenient to excerpt the following portion of the common judgment to appreciate the substantial questions and the argument of Mr.Anil D.Nair. "We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

B dated 25.03.2010, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The further appeal befor ITAT resulted in dismissal through the common judgment impugned in the appeal. It is useful and convenient to excerpt the following portion of the common judgment to appreciate the substantial questions and the argument of Mr.Anil D.Nair. "We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

B dated 25.03.2010, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The further appeal befor ITAT resulted in dismissal through the common judgment impugned in the appeal. It is useful and convenient to excerpt the following portion of the common judgment to appreciate the substantial questions and the argument of Mr.Anil D.Nair. "We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

B dated 25.03.2010, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The further appeal befor ITAT resulted in dismissal through the common judgment impugned in the appeal. It is useful and convenient to excerpt the following portion of the common judgment to appreciate the substantial questions and the argument of Mr.Anil D.Nair. "We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

B dated 25.03.2010, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The further appeal befor ITAT resulted in dismissal through the common judgment impugned in the appeal. It is useful and convenient to excerpt the following portion of the common judgment to appreciate the substantial questions and the argument of Mr.Anil D.Nair. "We have heard the rival submissions and perused

M/S. INDITRADE CAPITAL LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed, matter remitted to Income Tax

Bench: The Return Was Filed By The Assessee For The Subject Assessment Year. The Other Controversy Is

7(a) Subject to the provisions of clause (b), no deduction shall be allowed in respect of any provision (whether called as such or by any other name) made by the assessee for the payment of gratuity to his employees on their retirement or on termination of their employment for any reason. (b) Nothing in clause (a) shall apply

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

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

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Tribunal is right in law: (a) In interfering with the disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee on current securities. (b) In interfering with the disallowance of broken period interest in respect of securities purchased. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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