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

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 available under Clauses (a) to (c) are activity-based. The deduction available under Clauses (d) and (e) are investment-based and the deduction under Clause (f) is institution-based. To put it differently

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

5) Whether, the permission under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was obtained for the non-agricultural use of the land? If so, when and by whom (the vendor or the vendee)? Whether such permission was in respect of the whole or a portion of the land? If the permission was in respect of a portion

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

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

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

5 - subscribers to the chitties profited from the business carried on. If the subscribers profited they would be taxed for the income in their hands and that would not result in denial of exemption, if the assessee is otherwise eligible. 6. We also have to notice that the Tribunal erred in brushing aside the dictum of the two judge Bench

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

2 [1951] 20 ITR 451 (SC) 3 (1999) 5 SCC 189 ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -15- Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta4; Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal5; and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City I, Bombay v. National Storage Pvt. Ltd., Bombay6 . 6. Mr.Jose Joseph argues that whether the income received

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

2 [1951] 20 ITR 451 (SC) 3 (1999) 5 SCC 189 ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -15- Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta4; Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal5; and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City I, Bombay v. National Storage Pvt. Ltd., Bombay6 . 6. Mr.Jose Joseph argues that whether the income received

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

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

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

5. Senior Advocate Mr Joseph Markos, while reiterating the arguments put forward by the assessee before the statutory authorities and the Tribunal, expanded the contention by arguing that the view taken by the Tribunal and the authorities could negate the statutory deduction allowed to the assessee. According to him, the criteria for attracting Section 10(38) is I.T.A. No.216/2013

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

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