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

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

2(15) and Section 11(4A). But before extracting the above provisions, we refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thanthi Trust. Therein, a Daily newspaper, called 'Dhina Thanthi', was founded in 1942 and the same was settled on a trust called 'Thanthi Trust' created in 1954. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue

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

11 - Commission Agency Contract is not one falling under any of the exclusions provided in Explanation-2. A similar contention was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in US Technology Resources. Therein, the services offered were (i) management decision-making (ii) financial decision-making, (iii) legal matters and public relation activities, (iv) treasury services and (v) risk

ENANALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (1 AND C)

In the result, this Original Petition is allowed by quashing

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

HOUSE, VADAVATHUR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN -686 001. 5 THE REGISTRAR DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, ERNAKULAM, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. R1& R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN R1& R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.RENJITH R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.ANEESH R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR R4 BY ADV. SMT.M.SANTHY THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.11.2020, THE COURT

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. 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. 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES & INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

11) Whether permission under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of a non- agriculturist was for non-agricultural or agricultural use? (12) Whether the land was sold on yardage or on acreage basis? (13) Whether an agriculturist would purchased the land for agricultural purposes

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

11 OF 2008 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 297/2006 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S: TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. VALANJAVATTOM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADVS. SRI RAJA KANNAN, SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR; SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT/S: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX OTHER PRESENT: ADV RAJA KANNAN FOR THE APPELLANT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME

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

11 OF 2008 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 297/2006 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S: TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. VALANJAVATTOM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADVS. SRI RAJA KANNAN, SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR; SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT/S: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX OTHER PRESENT: ADV RAJA KANNAN FOR THE APPELLANT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME

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