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. 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

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

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

exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act. 2.1 ITA No.44/2019 is treated as representative appeal for considering and disposing of the substantial questions raised by the assessee in the set of appeals since the question I.T.A. No.57, 44 & 58/2019 -6- are same. The issues for adjudication substantially arise under Section 80P(2) of the Income

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

House Property"? 2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material or evidence for the Appellate Tribunal to hold that the apartment was not used for business purpose and therefore not entitled to deduction under Section 24 of the IT Act? 3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

exempt from the computation of the total income of the assessee, the loss from the sale of a long term share is set off against income from the sale of a long term asset. According to him, Section 70(3), if plainly read, does not prohibit the assessee from availing the loss otherwise incurred by the assessee in respect

JIK GEORGE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2

Appeal is dismissed

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

property, even though the said document clearly shows the existence of compound wall. 5. The learned Income-tax Officer has erred in estimating the market value of residential house in measuring 2000 sq. ft. at Rs.1,00,000/- and determining the indexed cost at Rs.4,75,187/- only as against the indexed cost of Rs.9,48,000/- claimed

M/S. BHARATHAKSHEMAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

exempt is that the business should be incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust or institution. A business whose income is utilised by the trust or the institution for the purposes of achieving the objectives of the trust or the institution is, surely, a business which is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust

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

exempted under sub-clause (b) of Section 9(1)(vii). To buttress the above contention, C.I.T. v. Toshoku Ltd. [(1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC)] is relied on. It is pointed out that the activity of the non-resident for which he was paid the commission was entirely outside India and the income had no territorial nexus with India