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

9 (2013) 33 taxmann.com 575 (Cochin-Trib.) ITA No.44/2017 -23- clarify that both the above judgments allow deduction under section 37 of the 1961 Act and not under section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act. In this case, the Tribunal has allowed the claim under section 37 and not only section 36(1)(iii), hence there is no infirmity

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

9. Admittedly, the appellants-assessees are co-operative banks. With the introduction of the Finance Act of 2007, coming into effect from April 1,2007, one has to understand what was the position prior to April 1, 2007, and after Apri1, 2007. During the relevant assessment year, admittedly, the appellants- assessees were not entitled for any deduction provided under section

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

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 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

9 the main ground on which the challenge to order of Tribunal is laid by the assessee. The main ground of assessee in the subject appeals is that the assessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on the whole of its income. The tax paid under 1991 Act is paid as a permissible deduction under Section

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

9 the main ground on which the challenge to order of Tribunal is laid by the assessee. The main ground of assessee in the subject appeals is that the assessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on the whole of its income. The tax paid under 1991 Act is paid as a permissible deduction under Section

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

9 the main ground on which the challenge to order of Tribunal is laid by the assessee. The main ground of assessee in the subject appeals is that the assessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on the whole of its income. The tax paid under 1991 Act is paid as a permissible deduction under Section

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

9 the main ground on which the challenge to order of Tribunal is laid by the assessee. The main ground of assessee in the subject appeals is that the assessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on the whole of its income. The tax paid under 1991 Act is paid as a permissible deduction under Section

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

9 the main ground on which the challenge to order of Tribunal is laid by the assessee. The main ground of assessee in the subject appeals is that the assessee has paid tax under Act 1991 on the whole of its income. The tax paid under 1991 Act is paid as a permissible deduction under Section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

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

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

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

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.

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

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

SUDARSANAN P.S vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1. Whether sub-clause (k) of Section 194(c) has applicability for the previous year 2006-07 (AY-2007-08). 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in restoring the addition of Rs.32,88,677/- made by the assessing officer on account of the dis- allowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-payment of TDS under Section