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

TDS payments made to non-members. 3. The Revenue vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the assessee viz., Kareeppa Panchayat Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. is in fact a cooperative bank covered u/sec.80P(4) of the Act than a cooperative credit society eligible for the impugned detailed discussion u/sec.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. We sought

PALLATH NAFEESA,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, TIRUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Pallath Nafeesa The Income Tax Officer Poolakkodan House Tirur Athirumada, Punnathala Vs. Tirur, Malappuram 676552 [Pan: Alipn9300R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS reported in70 taxmann.com 45. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Bench is extracted as under: “10. In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that the interest on which the tax is sought to be deducted at source under section 194A of the Act is interest under section

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. GROUND: Provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bonafide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 2.1. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are not attracted in the present case because non-deduction

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. GROUND: Provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bonafide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 2.1. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are not attracted in the present case because non-deduction

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. GROUND: Provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bonafide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 2.1. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are not attracted in the present case because non-deduction

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. GROUND: Provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bonafide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 2.1. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are not attracted in the present case because non-deduction

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. GROUND: Provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bonafide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 2.1. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are not attracted in the present case because non-deduction

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. GROUND: Provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bonafide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 2.1. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are not attracted in the present case because non-deduction

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

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

11,162/- under section 40(a)(ia) amounted to underreporting of income overlooking the fact that the appellant had deducted tax at source in all eligible cases and could not provide complete data due to technical issues faced by them on account of merger of 13 District Co-operative banks and short of time. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed

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)

11. The Hon'ble High Court 0f Delhi, Court on Its Own Motion v. Commissioner of Income-tax W.P.(C) No. 2659 OF 2012 AUGUST 31, 2012 held as follows: - "The second aspect relates to credit of TDS by the taxpayers even when tax is not been credited or paid to the government We do not think that it will

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR vs. KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavban, Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 Vs. Kannur Building Materials Co-Op. Society Ltd .......... Respondent No. C 1741, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur 670561 [Pan: Aaaak7151K]

11% of the members were engaged in the activity referred to in section 80(P)(2)(a)(vi) i.e., collective disposal of labour of the members of the society. 5.5 In this regard, based on the facts narrated above, I hold that the appellant is not eligible to claim 80(P)(2)(a)(vi) of the Act. 5.6 In Ground

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

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

TDS for the amount paid to the collection agents and for the maintenance charges which amounts to Rs.8,07,914/-. The deduction u/s 80P of the Act was disallowed by AO mainly 4. on the ground that the assessee is mainly in to banking business and not providing advances/credit for agriculture and Rural Development Activities. According

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

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

TDS for the amount paid to the collection agents and for the maintenance charges which amounts to Rs.8,07,914/-. The deduction u/s 80P of the Act was disallowed by AO mainly 4. on the ground that the assessee is mainly in to banking business and not providing advances/credit for agriculture and Rural Development Activities. According

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

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

TDS for the amount paid to the collection agents and for the maintenance charges which amounts to Rs.8,07,914/-. The deduction u/s 80P of the Act was disallowed by AO mainly 4. on the ground that the assessee is mainly in to banking business and not providing advances/credit for agriculture and Rural Development Activities. According

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

11,250 Re Survey Number 159/4 Thrikkaipetta village, Meppadi, Wayanad 2 Property: 2 10.02.2020 3,93,700 Survey Number 143/34 Kattippara Village, Thamarassery, Kozhikode 3 Property: 3 02.04.2019 4,64,10,000 Re Survey Number 90/3 Thrikaipetta Village, Meppadi, Wayanad 4 Property: 4 03.02.2020 13.190,000 Survey Number 140/1 Kattippara Village, Thamarassery, Kozhikode After claiming expenditure

M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

TDS - Large other expenses claimed in the Profit and Loss Account. n) The Assessing officer after examining reasons for selecting the return for limited scrutiny based on the records and submissions made by the assessee accepted the return and completed the Limited scrutiny by order dated 27.10.2017 without any adjustment to the loss as returned. o) The reason for initiation

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)

2) of the Act. Since the Assessee had failed to deduct tax under the said section, the Assessee has been treated as ‘Assessee is in default’ and was directed to pay INR.1,52,13,509/- under section 201(1) and interest of INR.69,98,214/- under section 201(1A) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before

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

2,08,68,464 Total 15,60,52,275 11. It is submitted that in respect of reimbursement of salary and other expenses to Apollo Vrerdestein B.V., Netherlands the same were held to be allowable by the Tribunal for AY 2010-11 vide 21 Apollo Tyres Ltd. order dated 10.01.2017. The decision of the Tribunal was confirmed

M/S.VIJAYA HOSPITALITY AND RESORTS LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADCIT(TDS), COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

TDS) is based on the correct legal position and material available on record. 11. I therefore confirm the penalty of Rs.9,12,069/-levied u/s. 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2010-11.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee