IFTHIKAR KARUPPAMVEETIL ABDUL RAHMAN,CHAVAKKAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

13,09,000/- minus (-) Rs. 10,00,000 premium paid by assessee) as taxable income under the head "Income from Other sources". It is noted that the assesses neither availed any deduction under Sec. 80C of the Act in respect of the premium paid to SBI, [therefore, he did not include redemption payment of premium amount

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

TDS. The AO also considered whether the said payments\nwould fall under the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. If the said\npayment would fall u/s. 9(1)(vii), whether the said payments are eligible for\nexemption as per the DTAA. Finally, the AO arrived the conclusion that the\nnon-residents do not have any business connection

SRI. GEORGE MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

TDS liability may arise if composite bills have been issued.” “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the assessing officer treating Agricultural Income as Business Income. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of 10% of expenses amounting

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI. GEORGE MATHEW, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

TDS liability may arise if composite bills have been issued.” “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the assessing officer treating Agricultural Income as Business Income. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of 10% of expenses amounting

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

TDS to the credit of Central Government during the period May,2009 to July,2009 i.e. before the due date specified i 139(1) of the Act for filing the return of Income. On such facts and circumstances the appellant submits that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked and the disallowance made is unjustified

MATHIIT LEARNING PRIVATE LIMITED,SASTHAMANGALAM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the ITA Nos

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

TDS in ITA No.16, 17 & 18/ASR/2019 v) ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Elite Engineering (Hyd) Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO Ward- 1-(2) Hyderabad in ITA No.2155 to 2159/H17 - AY 13-14, ITA No.2160 to 2163/H/7 - AY 14-15 and ITA No.2164 to 2167/H/7 - AY 15-16 decided on 29.11.2018 4.1 The Hon Kerala High Court decision cited

MATHIIT LEARNING PRIVATE LIMITED,SASTHAMANGALAM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the ITA Nos

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

TDS in ITA No.16, 17 & 18/ASR/2019 v) ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Elite Engineering (Hyd) Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO Ward- 1-(2) Hyderabad in ITA No.2155 to 2159/H17 - AY 13-14, ITA No.2160 to 2163/H/7 - AY 14-15 and ITA No.2164 to 2167/H/7 - AY 15-16 decided on 29.11.2018 4.1 The Hon Kerala High Court decision cited

MATHIIT LEARNING PRIVATE LIMITED,SASTHAMANGALAM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the ITA Nos

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

TDS in ITA No.16, 17 & 18/ASR/2019 v) ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Elite Engineering (Hyd) Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO Ward- 1-(2) Hyderabad in ITA No.2155 to 2159/H17 - AY 13-14, ITA No.2160 to 2163/H/7 - AY 14-15 and ITA No.2164 to 2167/H/7 - AY 15-16 decided on 29.11.2018 4.1 The Hon Kerala High Court decision cited

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

13. Since the assets were put to use for less than 180 days, additional depreciation was allowed only at 10% as per second proviso to section 32 of the Act. Balance additional depreciation cannot be allowed in subsequent AY, i.e. the year under consideration – Rs. 36,21,58,356/- iii. Disallowance of pre-operative expenditure details of which were extracted

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

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS only on a sum of Rs. 1,32,42,920/- and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source treating it as mere reimbursement of expenditure to MPCMS. The said payee, i.e. MPCMS also raised different bills. The AO was of the opinion that the money paid towards management consultancy charges under composite contract and the contract

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS only on a sum of Rs. 1,32,42,920/- and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source treating it as mere reimbursement of expenditure to MPCMS. The said payee, i.e. MPCMS also raised different bills. The AO was of the opinion that the money paid towards management consultancy charges under composite contract and the contract

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS only on a sum of Rs. 1,32,42,920/- and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source treating it as mere reimbursement of expenditure to MPCMS. The said payee, i.e. MPCMS also raised different bills. The AO was of the opinion that the money paid towards management consultancy charges under composite contract and the contract

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F

13. Section 40 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is a provision which deals with the amounts which are not deductible while computing the income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. Section 40 of the Act is amended in the year 2013, and 40(a)(iib) is inserted by Amending Act 17 of 2013, which

CLINT MARTEL WILFRED,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL CIT (A) BENGALURU - 12, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Clint Martel Wilfred Dcit (Interational Taxation) Clint Dale, Moolankuzhy Kochi Vs. Nazreth, Ernakulam 682002 [Pan: Abnpw6970H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

13,44,836/- only. However, his father expired/died in the same month i.e. May 2008, therefore the amount was not claimed. The assessee along other legal heirs made claimed for the compensation and accordingly an amount of Rs. 1,05,24,207/- after adjusting the amount of TDS was received as on 28-09-2010 in cash from the office

USHA VARMA,THRISSUR vs. ACIT , NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Anil Kumar Dugarusha Varma Asst. Cit, Non Corporate Skv College Road Circle 1(1), Kochi Kanattukkara Vs. Thrissur 680011 [Pan: Acupv6425A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 19.12.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)] vide his order dated 28.10.2022. 2. None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called for hearing. This, despite due communication of the notices

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

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

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 to note that

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT,TDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

Section 10 of the IT Act. 5 AAAAL0822C LBS CENTRE 64,44,687 No proof submitted for non- 644,469/- FOR SCIENCE deduction of Tax at source. AND TECHNOLOG Y Total 15,16,688/- Accordingly demanded TDS of Rs. 15,16,688/- along with interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act of Rs. 13

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)

13. The learned AR before us filed a paper book having 19 pages and reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below whereas the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 14. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The facts