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

HOUSE,W.ISLAND,KOCHI-682003. BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.10.2021, THE COURT ON 28.10.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A. No.179/2014 -2- J U D G M E N T S.V. Bhatti, J. The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi/Revenue is the appellant. M/s. Cochin Malabar Estates & Industries Ltd, Kochi/assessee

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

Appeals are allowed as indicated above

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

8. We have noted the rival submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties. In the circumstances of this case, the question that falls for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the interest income earned by the assessee from the deposits made with District/State Co- operative Banks and Treasury, firstly, would fall as business income

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. VILAPPIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,

Appeals are allowed as indicated above

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

8. We have noted the rival submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties. In the circumstances of this case, the question that falls for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the interest income earned by the assessee from the deposits made with District/State Co- operative Banks and Treasury, firstly, would fall as business income

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

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

8 - last head of charitable purpose and not the earlier three heads'. 9. Hence the question whether the incidental activity carried on can be termed as one for profit does not arise here, since the main object for which the Trust here is constituted, is a charitable purpose for reason of it being 'provision of medical relief'. Here, the question

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

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. 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

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

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

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’. The assessee under this head has two sources of income; firstly, from

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

8. The questions of law arising in the appeal are: i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Commissioner, that the payments made by the appellant to Shri Balaji Bal, attracts Sec.40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act and therefore not deductible from

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

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

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

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