THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

25,40,400/- per acre. Thus there was different of amount of Rs.15 lakhs per acre. This difference cannot be considered as a receipt for sale of agricultural property since a similar property was sold by trustees at around Rs.15 lakhs per acre. According to the Department, the assessee adopted colourable devices to receive the amount from Believers Church

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

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

25,40,400/- per acre. Thus there was different of amount of Rs.15 lakhs per acre. This difference cannot be considered as a receipt for sale of agricultural property since a similar property was sold by trustees at around Rs.15 lakhs per acre. According to the Department, the assessee adopted colourable devices to receive the amount from Believers Church

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

25,40,400/- per acre. Thus there was different of amount of Rs.15 lakhs per acre. This difference cannot be considered as a receipt for sale of agricultural property since a similar property was sold by trustees at around Rs.15 lakhs per acre. According to the Department, the assessee adopted colourable devices to receive the amount from Believers Church

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

25,40,400/- per acre. Thus there was different of amount of Rs.15 lakhs per acre. This difference cannot be considered as a receipt for sale of agricultural property since a similar property was sold by trustees at around Rs.15 lakhs per acre. According to the Department, the assessee adopted colourable devices to receive the amount from Believers Church

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