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

disallowance of foreign exchange loss by setting up an entirely new case invoking the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil

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

disallowance of business loss of Rs.4,07,24,151/- incurred by the assessee on the sale of its wholly own subsidiary. In the year under consideration, the appellant company has shown a loss of Rs.4,07,24,151/- on the sale its 100% share holding in Apollo Tyres A.G., Switzerland (ATAG) to Apollo Tyres Cyprus Pvt. Ltd. (ATC). The said

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

set aside? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.49,00,000/- being quality loss

M/S PTL ENTERPRISES LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

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

set aside? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.49,00,000/- being quality loss

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

set aside? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.49,00,000/- being quality loss

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TX

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

set aside? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.49,00,000/- being quality loss

M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

set aside? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.49,00,000/- being quality loss

M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. (FORMERLY PREMIER TYRES LTD) vs. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),RANGE-2, ERNAKULAM

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

set aside? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.49,00,000/- being quality loss

THE RAHABILITATION PLANTATION LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The Subject Matter Of Appeal Relates To Assessment Year 2008-09 & The Controversies Relate To The Allowance Claimed By The Assessee Towards The Replantation Of Rubber Plants In An Area Where Rubber Trees Were Planted & Have Become Unproductive & Are Not In An Abandoned Area As Required By Rule 7A (2) Of The Income Tax Rules 1962, The Deduction Of Expenditure Incurred Towards Upkeep & Maintenance Of Rubber Saplings Till Maturity Or The Trees Yield & The Loss Incurred At The Rubber Sheet Factory.

disallowing the loss claimed by the Appellant from rubber sheet factory? iv) Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in not allowing the prior period expenses, paid by the appellant during the previous year relating to the Assessment Year 2008-09? v) Is not the finding of fact by the Appellate Tribunal erroneous and perverse?” 5. The learned counsel appearing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

setting off the brought forward unabsorbed losses of the preceding assessment years against the current years by computing income of Rs.6,61,75,914/- received from ATL as income from business. On 30.12.1998, the assessment was completed under section 143(3). The assessment was completed by treating the lease rent received from Apollo Tyres Ltd. amounting to Rs.6

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

setting off the brought forward unabsorbed losses of the preceding assessment years against the current years by computing income of Rs.6,61,75,914/- received from ATL as income from business. On 30.12.1998, the assessment was completed under section 143(3). The assessment was completed by treating the lease rent received from Apollo Tyres Ltd. amounting to Rs.6

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

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

setting off the brought forward unabsorbed losses of the preceding assessment years against the current years by computing income of Rs.6,61,75,914/- received from ATL as income from business. On 30.12.1998, the assessment was completed under section 143(3). The assessment was completed by treating the lease rent received from Apollo Tyres Ltd. amounting to Rs.6

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

set aside the order of the Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the disallowance made by the AO.” 4. The assessee challenges the said finding by framing the following question of law: I.T.A. No.26/2013 -8- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding the expenditure of Rs.56

TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

set up a factory styled as "UPL Factory" for manufacturing PVC sheets. The assessee suffered losses and entered a 'leave and licence' agreement to transfer the occupational right of premises in favour of the lessee. The licence fee was shown as business income, which was negatived by the authorities and the High Court of Calcutta. The question of law considered

TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMSSR;INCOME TAX,C-I,THIRUVALLA

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

set up a factory styled as "UPL Factory" for manufacturing PVC sheets. The assessee suffered losses and entered a 'leave and licence' agreement to transfer the occupational right of premises in favour of the lessee. The licence fee was shown as business income, which was negatived by the authorities and the High Court of Calcutta. The question of law considered

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

disallowance of service tax payable under Section 43B, particularly when the same was not charged to the Profit and Loss Account or claimed as a deduction in the computation of income? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there is any evidence or material on record for the Tribunal to substantiate its finding that

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.

loss of Rs.283,37,80,796/-. While the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was completed on 07.12.2017, by disallowing an amount of Rs.1,80,04,849/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, the said order was set

M/S. APPOLLO TYRES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

set aside the following observation in the order of the Tribunal: “However, foreign exchange fluctuation related to the interest portion is to be treated as revenue receipt which shall be brought to tax. Being so, this ground of the assessee is partly allowed.” As indicated above, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. I.T.A