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

2) An urban consumer society; 3) A society carrying on transport business; 4) A society engaged in the performance of any manufacturing operations with the aid of power, where the gross total income does not exceed Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand rupees) The income by way of interest on securities and the income from house property chargeable under Section

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

house were assessable under Section 161 of the IT Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the provisions of the IT Act, specifically Sections 5(2), 9(1)(i), 160, 161 and 163. Section 5(2) of the Act deals with the chargeability of the income of a non-resident. The above provisions were dealt with in the following

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. 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

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

2(14) would automatically be outside the scope of section 45. In the decision in M. Venkatesan v. CIT reported in [1983] 144 ITR 886, this court, referring to the scope of section 45, held that "taxation or exemption from taxation depends upon the subject of transfer answering or not answering the definition of capital asset at the time

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

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

House Estate Ltd. illustrate the contrary proposition. There, the property, though dealt with by a company intending to do business, was dealt with as landowner. The intention in those cases was not to derive profit by business done with those properties but to derive .income by renting them out Where a Company acquires properties which it sells or leases

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

House Estate Ltd. illustrate the contrary proposition. There, the property, though dealt with by a company intending to do business, was dealt with as landowner. The intention in those cases was not to derive profit by business done with those properties but to derive .income by renting them out Where a Company acquires properties which it sells or leases

K.R.RASEENA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX

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

HOUSE, WELCOME VILLA, GURUVAYOOR ROAD, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 002. BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.VENKATESH SRI.P.C.CHACKOPARATHANAM SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, W.A. No. 85 of 2018 2 NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2 CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI

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

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"? 2

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

Section 14 classifies income under five heads, namely (i) salaries, (ii) income from house property, (iii) income from business profession (iv) income from capital gains, and (v) income from other sources. Each one of these heads of income is capable of having more than one source of income. The case on hand deals with income under the head ‘capital gains

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

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

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 by the appellant. 8. These grounds were raised by the assessee before the ITA NO. 47 OF 2018 -4- CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) omitted to consider these grounds

SHRI JOSEPH THANNIKOTTU KORAH vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

HOUSE,TITANIUM NAGAR, KAVANADU.P.O., KOLLAM-691003. BY ADVS. V.P.NARAYANAN NISHA JOHN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) RESPONDENT/S: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695003. BY ADV SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING