LOTS SHIPPING LIMITED,KOCHI vs. JCIT TDS , KOCHI

Appeal are Dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Penalty order passed by the JCIT (TDS) and the submissions of the assessee. 5.1 The assessee company is a deductor

LOTS SHIPPING LIMITED,KOCHI vs. JCIT TDS, KOCHI

Appeal are Dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Penalty order passed by the JCIT (TDS) and the submissions of the assessee. 5.1 The assessee company is a deductor

CGR HALLMARKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. ASSESING OFFICER,(ITO), COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Cgr Hallmarkers Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Building No. 62/1906, A, Sadanam Road Extn., M.G. Road S.O., Kochi 682016 [Pan: Aaccc4855G] Vs. Dcit, Corporte Circle 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956 Engaged In The Business Of Refining Precious Metals & Minting Of Coins & Bars. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 30.10.2017 Disclosing Income Of Rs. 46,28,269/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated

TDS v Disallowance of penalty Rs. 3,58,318/- vi. Disallowance of cash deposits Rs. 1,99,800/- 3. Being

CORPORATION OF CALICUT,CALICUT vs. DCIT(TDS), CALICUT

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed by upholding the order of the AO

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

penalty order was passed by the DCIT(TDS) on 16.06.2014. In the submission in para-4, the appellant states that

CORPORATION OF CALICUT,CALICUT vs. DCIT(TDS), CALICUT

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed by upholding the order of the AO

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

penalty order was passed by the DCIT(TDS) on 16.06.2014. In the submission in para-4, the appellant states that

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

TDS u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the said order, the AO had also stated that penalty proceedings

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS on ESOP was not given by the AO. The AO passed a rectification order u/s.154 and accordingly the tax was reduced to Rs.292 and along with interest the final demand was computed at Rs.970. 3. Subsequently the AO initiated the penalty

NEW KABLE POINT,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

TDS and paid to the department and also the AO based on the Profit & Loss account disallowed the expenses in respect of the interest and penalty

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

TDS under the provisions of income tax, would partake character of business expenditure or not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills (supra) held that whenever any statutory impost is paid by an assessee by way of damages, penalty

M/S ALPHONSA TIMBERS AND TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MARADU vs. ITO(TDS), KOCHI

In the result, ITA Nos.241 & 242/COCH/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty u/s. 221(1) of the Act was dismissed. 5. The facts stated for AY 2012-13 show that the assessee is a dealer in imported timber who imports the timber and sells it to registered dealers. On 11.3.2013, the ITO(TDS

ST. ALPHONSA TIMBERS AND TRADERS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ITO(TDS), KOCHI

In the result, ITA Nos.241 & 242/COCH/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty u/s. 221(1) of the Act was dismissed. 5. The facts stated for AY 2012-13 show that the assessee is a dealer in imported timber who imports the timber and sells it to registered dealers. On 11.3.2013, the ITO(TDS

ST. ALPHONSA TIMBERS AND TRADERS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ITO (TDS), KOCHI

In the result, ITA Nos.241 & 242/COCH/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty u/s. 221(1) of the Act was dismissed. 5. The facts stated for AY 2012-13 show that the assessee is a dealer in imported timber who imports the timber and sells it to registered dealers. On 11.3.2013, the ITO(TDS

M/S ALPHONSA TIMBERS AND TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MARADU vs. ITO(TDS), KOCHI

In the result, ITA Nos.241 & 242/COCH/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty u/s. 221(1) of the Act was dismissed. 5. The facts stated for AY 2012-13 show that the assessee is a dealer in imported timber who imports the timber and sells it to registered dealers. On 11.3.2013, the ITO(TDS

AISWARYA GRANITES,KOLLAM vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Aiswarya Granites, Egpvii/70, The Assistant Arkannor, Commissioner Of Elavummoodu, Vs. Income Tax, Kollam 691 533. National E- Assessment Centre, Pan No : Aapfa5874K Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri G. Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: The Preset Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 25.3.2022 Passed By Nfac Delhi For Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner (Appeals) Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Is Against-Facts & Law. 2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Is Not Justified In Disallowing The Payment Of Commercial Tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) Should Have Appreciated That The Amount Paid Was A Statutory Levy Payable By All Crushers Installed In Stone Quarries Based On Their Installed Capacity. The Levy Was To Be Remitted On Quarterly Basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Concluding That The Amount Paid Is In The Nature Of A Compounding Fee For Any Offence Or Towards Aiswarya Granites, Kollam

penalty. Thus the disallowance is wholly unwarranted. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, is not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.50, 000 legal charges by ignoring the fact that the payments were made to different persons and the individual payments were below the threshold limit to which the TDS

JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPORATION LIMITED,KOCHI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CIRCLE KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2019-20 Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. .......... Appellant 32/2401 B Rashtradeepia Building Palarivttom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aaacj8267F] Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Tds Circle, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Prashanth Srinivas, Ca Respondent By: Shri Omanakuttan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

TDS amount to the Government Account in time. Thus, the assessee was treated as an assessee in default. A notice u/s. 274 2 Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. r.w.s. 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued on 21.11.2019 enabling the assessee to show cause as to why penalty

M/S CEECON READYMIX CONCRETE PVT LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO TDS RANGE, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the afore-said terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

TDS, which is only on the filing the correct Form, and which is what in fact led the assessee to file the same. Further, this is precisely what the law, by subjecting it to a cost in the form of a fee, seeks to discourage and, per contra, promote filing of proper returns in time. The same is neither interest

M/S CEECON READYMIX CONCRETE PVT LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO TDS RANGE, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the afore-said terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

TDS, which is only on the filing the correct Form, and which is what in fact led the assessee to file the same. Further, this is precisely what the law, by subjecting it to a cost in the form of a fee, seeks to discourage and, per contra, promote filing of proper returns in time. The same is neither interest

PUSHPAGIRI MEDICAL SOCIETY,THIRUVALLA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeypushpagiri Medical Society Asst. Cit Thiruvalla 689101 (Exemptions) Vs. Pan – Aaatp2418H Cochin

TDS and TCS reflected under PAN: AACAP7197G (in the name of Pushpagiri Hospital (PH)), even as the corresponding income stands returned and assessed under the former PAN, which Page 2 Pushpagiri Medical Soceity v. Asst. CIT is registered both u/s. 10(23C) and u/s. 12A of the Act. We see no reason why it should be regarded