M/S.KADUNA HOSPITALITY P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS 3,009,047 20,333,836 31-03-2014 Total 32,625,989 32,625,989 Copy of the Bank Statement and Form 26AS are enclosed as Annexure A and B. 5. Section 45(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dealing with the charge to Capital Gains is as under, 45 (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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

11 ITA No.478/Coch/2023. Vadakkevila SCB Ltd. 15.7 What is central to the controversy in this batch of cases is, whether, the appellant bank is a co-operative bank. What is of significance to know is, a state co-operative bank or central co-operative bank under the NABARD Act, 1981 is essentially a principal co-operative society either

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

11. Regarding Ground No. 5, after hearing both sides and relying on Circular No. 715 dated 8th August, 1995 and the judgment quoted by the learned A.R. in his written submission, we remit this issue also to the file of the ITO(TDS) for verification of the nature of services received by the assessee is covered 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

11. Regarding Ground No. 5, after hearing both sides and relying on Circular No. 715 dated 8th August, 1995 and the judgment quoted by the learned A.R. in his written submission, we remit this issue also to the file of the ITO(TDS) for verification of the nature of services received by the assessee is covered 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

11. Regarding Ground No. 5, after hearing both sides and relying on Circular No. 715 dated 8th August, 1995 and the judgment quoted by the learned A.R. in his written submission, we remit this issue also to the file of the ITO(TDS) for verification of the nature of services received by the assessee is covered under Section

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

11. Regarding Ground No. 5, after hearing both sides and relying on Circular No. 715 dated 8th August, 1995 and the judgment quoted by the learned A.R. in his written submission, we remit this issue also to the file of the ITO(TDS) for verification of the nature of services received by the assessee is covered 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

11. Regarding Ground No. 5, after hearing both sides and relying on Circular No. 715 dated 8th August, 1995 and the judgment quoted by the learned A.R. in his written submission, we remit this issue also to the file of the ITO(TDS) for verification of the nature of services received by the assessee is covered 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

11. Regarding Ground No. 5, after hearing both sides and relying on Circular No. 715 dated 8th August, 1995 and the judgment quoted by the learned A.R. in his written submission, we remit this issue also to the file of the ITO(TDS) for verification of the nature of services received by the assessee is covered under Section

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)

11,298/- as income from other sources and after providing deduction of 50% as per the provision of section 57(iv) of the Act made addition of Rs. 39,55,649/- to the total income of the assessee. 5. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The assessee before the learned CIT(A) made identical submission

MR.THOMAS DANIEL,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.68/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

5. Reading of Section 40a(ia) along with 2nd proviso and Section 201(1) along with proviso, it would mean that the mandate or requirement on the part of the payer to deduct tax at source is not so strict if they are able to show that the payee or the recipient of the amounts has paid tax in accordance

M/S.TRAVEL TRAILS INDIA P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT,, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K

TDS) in WP(C) No.37775 of 2018 (judgment dated 18th December, 2018). The Hon’ble High Court had held that fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act could not have been computed for assessment prior to 01.06.2015. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court reads as follow:- “9. Interpreting Section 200A and Section 234E, the Karnataka High Court

ITO, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.SOUTHERN MINERAL INDUSTRIES,, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

TDS under section 194C, 194H and 194I of the Act and also created the demand and levied interest under section 201(1A) vide order dated 25/03/2011. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) treated the assessee in default under section 194C and 194H in respect of transport charges, freight charges, commission and brokerage

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

M/S.MALAYALAM COMMUNICATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

TDS to be made on payments to production houses and not to the individuals as in the case of assessee. Taking into account all the above, the CIT(A) was of the considered opinion that the provisions of section 194J alone are applicable to the assessee and thereby, the assessee ought to have deducted the tax at 10% instead

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

5 of the BR Act and hence, it is not a co-operative bank which is a primary agricultural credit society.” 5.5 In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in assessee’s own case (supra), we hold that the orders of the A.O. and CIT(A) in denying the benefit of deduction

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

5 of the BR Act and hence, it is not a co-operative bank which is a primary agricultural credit society.” 5.5 In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in assessee’s own case (supra), we hold that the orders of the A.O. and CIT(A) in denying the benefit of deduction

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

5 of the BR Act and hence, it is not a co-operative bank which is a primary agricultural credit society.” 5.5 In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in assessee’s own case (supra), we hold that the orders of the A.O. and CIT(A) in denying the benefit of deduction

SHRI SURESH GEORGE,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ADIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3, THIRUVANATHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysuresh George Asstt. Director Of Income Tax Kurichyiel House International Taxation Payippad, Harippad Vs. Thiruvananthapuram Alappuzha 690 556 [Pan:Affpg5853B]

section 4 r.w.s. 5(2)(a) of the Act, but to the same provision/s as the income of which it is a part. There is, as such, no scope for bringing the tax deducted at source (rs. 22.12 lacs) on the impugned sum to tax even as it is without doubt received in India in Indian currency. Further

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

11. Ground No.3 is with reference to disallowance of expenditure for non-deduction of TDS. The assessee had paid a sum of Rs.1,21,86,468 as commission to PCARDB. The commission was paid by the assessee to PCARDB for mobilizing deposits for the assessee. Since there was no tax deduction at source, the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions