ELAVANCHALIL ABDUL BASHEER,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer .......... Appellant Oittannmakm, Koduvally, Kozhikode 673572 [Pan: Bbwpb4939D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Agriculture’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 21.12.2020 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,60,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhokode

10,000/- on which TDS of Rs. 4,64,100/- was paid by the buyer of the property. Based on this information the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why the above property cannot be considered as non-agricultural land and also submitted the evidence in support of the agricultural expenditure incurred. It was stated that

INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. MUTHOOT HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOZHENCHERRY

Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the same. Thus, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

TDS under Section 194J. The determination hinges on whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the appellant and the doctors. 3 Assessment Year 2018-2019 5.2 It is a well-established principle in income tax law that the nature of payment is determined by the substance of the relationship between the payer and the payee, rather than merely the nomenclature

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 is only a technical violation u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act and nothing to indicate Page 10 of 14 that there is concealment of income resulting in underreporting of income and the legal fiction created u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be extended to the levy of penalty. c. The statutory auditor in their audit report dated

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

14,06,31,409/- u/s 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS 5.1 The Ld. AO has erred in considering reimbursement of Rs 12,68,42,880/- towards Salary and other R&D expenses within the scope of "Fee for technical Services under explanation 2 of section 9(1)(vii)of Income Tax Act and liable for TDS

KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kerala Shipping & Inalnd Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Navigtation Corporation C.R. Building, I.S. Pres Road 38/924-A, Udaya Nagar Road Kochi 682018 Vs. Gandhi Nagar Kochi 682020 [Pan: Aabck4818L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

14,48,676/- as per Form 26AS. The AO without making necessary inquiry allowed the claim of the TDS credit. 5. Likewise, the learned PCIT noticed that the AO made addition of Rs. 85,60,650/- under section 69C of the Act. However, the same was adjusted towards current year business loss which is against the provisions of section 115BBE

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

TDS. We find that the said amount was added based on the figures found place in the books of account and not based on the incriminating materials seized during the search. Therefore, when the AO made an assessment u/s. 153C of the Act, he cannot make addition u/s. 68 or 69 since the same was not made based

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

TDS. We find that the said amount was added based on the figures found place in the books of account and not based on the incriminating materials seized during the search. Therefore, when the AO made an assessment u/s. 153C of the Act, he cannot make addition u/s. 68 or 69 since the same was not made based

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

TDS. We find that the said amount was added based on the figures found place in the books of account and not based on the incriminating materials seized during the search. Therefore, when the AO made an assessment u/s. 153C of the Act, he cannot make addition u/s. 68 or 69 since the same was not made based

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

TDS. We find that the said amount was added based on the figures found place in the books of account and not based on the incriminating materials seized during the search. Therefore, when the AO made an assessment u/s. 153C of the Act, he cannot make addition u/s. 68 or 69 since the same was not made based

MOHAMED MUSTHAFA KUNNATH CHENGAANA,CALICUT vs. ITO,WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS and the appellant’s share of 1/9th of Rs.47,46,504 was brought to tax as business profit of the appellant, by the AO. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), contending that the rural agricultural land does not come under the purview of “Capital Asset” as defined under the provisions

MR. PREM MUKUNDAN ,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. (Judicial Member), Ms. Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member)

section 154 of the Act ought to have been entertained by the Revenue. 10. In this regard, learned DR also made submission that the decision of the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, was in relation to provisions of Rule 37BA of the Rules which is applicable to TDS and not to TCS and it is only Rule 37-I of the Rules

M/S ST. ALPHONSA TIMBERS AND TRADERS (PVT) LTD,MARADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

14. We may now deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The first contention for assailing the legality and validity of the intimation under section 200A was that, the provision of section 200A(1)(c), (d) and (f) have come into force only with effect from 1.6.2015 and hence, there was no authority or competence

M/S ST. ALPHONSA TIMBERS & TRADERS (PVT) LTD,MARADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

14. We may now deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The first contention for assailing the legality and validity of the intimation under section 200A was that, the provision of section 200A(1)(c), (d) and (f) have come into force only with effect from 1.6.2015 and hence, there was no authority or competence

ANUMOD VISHWAMBHARAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO TDS WARD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 78/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 79/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Anumod Viswambharan बनाम/ Ito Tc 8/2164, Cheruvikal, Tds Ward, Aayakar Vs. Medical College, Bhavan, Peroorkada Thiruvananthapuram- Road, Kowdiar, 695011. Thiruvananthapuram. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adjpv0729M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023

14. We may now deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The first contention for assailing the legality and validity of the intimation under section 200A was that, the provision of section 200A(1)(c), (d) and (f) have come into force only with effect from 1.6.2015 and hence, there was no authority or competence

ANUMOD VISHWAMBHARAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO TDS WARD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 78/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 79/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Anumod Viswambharan बनाम/ Ito Tc 8/2164, Cheruvikal, Tds Ward, Aayakar Vs. Medical College, Bhavan, Peroorkada Thiruvananthapuram- Road, Kowdiar, 695011. Thiruvananthapuram. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adjpv0729M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023

14. We may now deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The first contention for assailing the legality and validity of the intimation under section 200A was that, the provision of section 200A(1)(c), (d) and (f) have come into force only with effect from 1.6.2015 and hence, there was no authority or competence

THE KAREEPPA PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.D,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2017-18

14 Kareeppa Panchayat Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. \ 15.5. Further, Section 2(d) of NABARD Act, 1981 defines central cooperative bank while Section 2(u) defines a state co- operative bank to mean the principal co-operative society in a State, the primary object of which is financing of other co- operative societies in the State which 59 means

VADAKKEVILA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

14 ITA No.478/Coch/2023. Vadakkevila SCB Ltd. NABARD Act, 1981 and the appellant society not being so declared, would imply that the appellant society is not a state co-operative bank. 15.12 In fact, in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd., (supra) this Court held that the appellant therein was having both members as well as nominal members who were depositing

ROSE GEORGE KOLLANUR,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

section 54F. In this regard, the ld. AR relied on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. K. Ramachandra Rao, ITA No.74/2014. 4. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. Page 4 of 10 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is a given

M/S. POYANIL HOSPITAL,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE ITO, TDS, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2013-14 M/S.Poyanil Hospital, Ito, Vs. Poyanil, Tds, Kozhencherry. Alappuzha. Pan :Aacfm 7322 F Assessee Respondent

14. 2. The solitary issue raised in all these appeals is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer’s order u/s 200A of the I.T. Act, wherein he levied late fees u/s 234E of the I.T. Act for various quarters. The assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee in the 3rd 3. quarter for the Financial