M/S. JOYALUKKAS INDIA LTD, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial questions

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

Transfer I.T.A. No.10/2019 3 Pricing Officer and resulted in a draft order dated 25.03.2014 under Section 143(3) read with 144C(1) of the Act. Though objections to the draft order were filed before the dispute resolution panel, the panel vide order dated 29.12.2014 upheld some of the additions proposed in the draft assessment order and thereafter the respondent passed

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

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

4. Assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 16 :: under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas

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.

4. Assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 16 :: under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

4. Assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 16 :: under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

4. Assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 16 :: under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

4. Assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 16 :: under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.APOLLO TYRES LIMITED

Bench: This Court. The Issues Canvassed In The Appeal Relate To Assessment Year 2010-11. Prefaced In The Beginning, The Issues Raised By The Revenue Arise Under Section 144C Read With Section 143(3) Vis-A-Vis Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short 'The Act').

4. Learned Standing Counsel Sri.Christopher Abraham argues that the Tribunal had committed a fundamental error in law in interdicting the order dated 23.03.2016 made by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that Annexure-B order dated 28.03.2014 is a draft assessment order made under Section 144C of the Act. The character

M/S. APPOLLO TYRES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

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 of the Revenue

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI -I vs. M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

Section 35(2AB) in respect of the salary paid on outdoor R & D facility without qualification of the DSIR and that too following conflicting case laws. 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the Hon'ble ITAT right in law and fact in ITA No.43 of 2017 3 holding that DG Power Generation Units

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

price. The assessee acts as a post-office. There is no relationship of Principal and Agent between the assessee and his retail buyers. The retail sellers did not provide service to the assessee thus entitling for receipt of commission/incentive from the assessee. He places strong reliance on Section 194G of the Act and argues that the basic ingredients warranting application

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

4) Whether the income derived from the agricultural operations carried on in the land bore any rational proportion to the investment made in purchasing the land? (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

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

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

transferred 76.73 ares of land to one Sri Sajiv ITA NO. 310 OF 2019 -3- Mathai for a total consideration of Rs.3,35,700/-. The assessee produced the sale deed dated 20.1.2011. The case of the assessee is that though the document value is only Rs.3,35,700/-, the actual consideration was for Rs.31,00,000/- including an advance