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

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

house property? 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the assessee and the Revenue would state that the questions covered by (a) and (b) are similar to the questions raised by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in ITA No.26/2013. This Court vide order dated 29.07.2021 has answered the said questions against the assessee and in favour

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

Appeals are allowed as indicated above

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

house property chargeable under Section 22. 29. From the Tabular form presented above, it may be clear that the deductions

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. VILAPPIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,

Appeals are allowed as indicated above

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

house property chargeable under Section 22. 29. From the Tabular form presented above, it may be clear that the deductions

HOSDURG RANGE KALLU CHETHU THOZHILALI VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

house property chargeable under Section 22. I.T.A. No.57, 44 & 58/2019 -11- 29. From the Tabular form presented above, it may be clear that the deductions

MALANKARA PLANTATIONS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The Subject Matter Of Appeal Relates To Assessment Year 2011-12 & The Controversies Relate To The Allowance Claimed By The Assessee Towards The Replantation Of Rubber Plants In An Area Where Rubber Trees

deduction under Section 37 of Act 1961.” 4. The assessee raises the following substantial questions of law: “1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in confirming the disallowance of interest on loan paid on purchase of apartment claimed under the head "Income from House Property

K.M. FATHIMA, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

HOUSE PROPERTY As per return Rs.25,296/- INCOME FROM BUSINESS As per return Rs.46,106/- INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES As per return Rs.37,641/- Add: Agriculture income disallowed as discussed above Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs.2,47,043/- Gross Total Income Rs.3,18,445/- Less: Deduction

K.M. FATHIMA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

HOUSE PROPERTY As per return Rs.25,296/- INCOME FROM BUSINESS As per return Rs.46,106/- INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES As per return Rs.37,641/- Add: Agriculture income disallowed as discussed above Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs.2,47,043/- Gross Total Income Rs.3,18,445/- Less: Deduction

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

house property; (D) Profits and gains of business or profession; (E) Capital gains; (F) income from other sources unless otherwise, provided in the Act. (15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

house property; (D) Profits and gains of business or profession; (E) Capital gains; (F) income from other sources unless otherwise, provided in the Act. (15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under

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

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

house property; (D) Profits and gains of business or profession; (E) Capital gains; (F) income from other sources unless otherwise, provided in the Act. (15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under

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.

house property; (D) Profits and gains of business or profession; (E) Capital gains; (F) income from other sources unless otherwise, provided in the Act. (15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

house property; (D) Profits and gains of business or profession; (E) Capital gains; (F) income from other sources unless otherwise, provided in the Act. (15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under

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

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

deduction allowed to the assessee. According to him, the criteria for attracting Section 10(38) is I.T.A. No.216/2013 -8- that income arising from the transfer of a long term capital asset, being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity- oriented fund, the transaction is chargeable to STT. In the case on hand, the twin requirements

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

deduct any tax under Section 195 from the commission paid to the non-resident on the ground that it is not taxable. 11. We have already detailed the various contentions of the appellant and the Revenue herein before. The first contention of the assessee is that there is no technical element in the appointment of the agent and even