THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

5. In I.T.A.Nos.46/2020, 48/2020, 49/2020 and 51/2020, the following substantial questions of law have been raised: (i) Whether the trustees of a public charitable trust have a right to I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 17 :: trusteeship and if they need to be compensated for relinquishing such right ? (ii) Whether the trusteees are entitled

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

5. In I.T.A.Nos.46/2020, 48/2020, 49/2020 and 51/2020, the following substantial questions of law have been raised: (i) Whether the trustees of a public charitable trust have a right to I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 17 :: trusteeship and if they need to be compensated for relinquishing such right ? (ii) Whether the trusteees are entitled

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

5. In I.T.A.Nos.46/2020, 48/2020, 49/2020 and 51/2020, the following substantial questions of law have been raised: (i) Whether the trustees of a public charitable trust have a right to I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 17 :: trusteeship and if they need to be compensated for relinquishing such right ? (ii) Whether the trusteees are entitled

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

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

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

2. On 01.10.2010 the assessee filed income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2010-11. On 23.10.2012 the assessment has been referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer-1, Kochi under Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). On 29.01.2014, the Joint Director of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer-1, Kochi, made the order under Section

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

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

2. The appellant is engaged in the trading of textile materials, manufacturing and trading of jewellery. The return of income filed for the Annual Year 2010-11 by the appellant was processed under Section 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act ('the Act' for short) was issued

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

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

5. The assessee filed I.T.A. No. 79/KTM/CIT(A)-IV/2010- 11 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ernakulam. The CIT (Appeals), through Annexure-B Order dated 04.06.2013, allowed the appeal and the Revenue filed I.T.A. No. 512/COCH/2013 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin. Through Annexure-C Order dated 25.10.2016 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the appeal. The appellant

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

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

Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued. The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.30,00,000/- made in the assessee’s bank account with ICICI bank, Kollam on 20.1.2011. The assessee submitted that the sum represented the sale receipts of land belonging to his wife, Smt. Saly Joseph, who had transferred

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').

5. Learned Senior Advocate Sri.Joseph Markos argues that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, in I.T.A. No.36/2017 -8- the admitted circumstances of the case, is completely illegal and unavailable. By explaining the scheme of Section 144C of the Act, it is argued, Annexure-B order dated 28.03.2014 is nothing but a draft assessment proposed

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

2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case is the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in allowing the assessee's claim of weighted deduction under 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

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

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

5. Substantial question no.(c) reads thus: “c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in confirming the disallowance of the amount of Rs. 1,03,92,000/- being year-end provision for payment of commission as an unascertained liability? 5.1 The assessee for the Assessment Year 2009-10 booked an expenditure