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.

Section applicable Amount paid without TDS. Financial year 05-06 (Rs.) Sieving charges 1. 194C 14,99,377 2. Drying charges 194C 14,97,696 3. Loading charges 914C 10,13

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

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

TDS with the Government. 27. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the Section, is required to be read into the Section to give the Section a reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

TDS with the Government. 27. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the Section, is required to be read into the Section to give the Section a reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation

M/S.THOMSON INDUTRIES,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2 ,ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Ita Nos. 195 & 196/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Thomson Industries, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Thazhekkad, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Thrissur. Kochi. [Pan:Aafft 8235M]

13,656/- was towards the sister concerns of the assessee. The assesses had not deducted TDS as per section I94A

M/S.THOMSON INDUTRIES,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2 ,ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Ita Nos. 195 & 196/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Thomson Industries, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Thazhekkad, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Thrissur. Kochi. [Pan:Aafft 8235M]

13,656/- was towards the sister concerns of the assessee. The assesses had not deducted TDS as per section I94A

M/S AC CARGO MANAGEMENT P.LTD,,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri George George. K.] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 320/Coch/2013. िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008. Vs. M/S. Ac Cargo Management The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd, Ward 1(1) 1St Floor, Chacko Chambers, Kochi Civil Lines Road, Palarivattom, Kochi 682 025. [Pan Aaeca 2206K] (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" (ू"यथ" ू"यथ" ू"यथ"/Respondent) ू"यथ"

TDS and the assessee had failed to effect such deductions. According to him, lower authorities were justified in applying Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. :- 6 -: 7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. It would be apposite to have look at the MOU entered by the assessee for leasing the Containarized

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

M/S.KADUTHURUTHY REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE JT IT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathankaduthuruthy Regional Service Joint Commissioner Of Co-Op Bank Ltd. Income Tax (Tds) Vs. Kaduthuruthuy P.O. Trivandrum Kottayam Pan – Aaajk0315Q Appellant Respondent

Section 133(6) by the Income Tax Officer (TDS), Kottayam be deleted. F. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered and answered the questions of law raised in the grounds of appeal, by a speaking order. G. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The appeal filed

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

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

TDS u/s 194A. The Ld. AR submitted that Section I94A does not apply to individuals unless he is a person liable to tax audit u/s 44AB of the I.T. Act 1961 and in this case, the assessee, being an individual is not within the purview of the said section. Therefore, it was submitted that the department will have to I.T.A

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

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.KUNNEL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS P. LTD, KOCHI

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

13 as required by section 43B of the Income Tax Act. It was clarified that the assessee was not routing the service tax collected by it through the profit & loss account and instead it is directly shown as an outstanding liability in the balance sheet. The assessee therefore, contended that section 43B was not applicable since I.T.A. Nos. 653/Coch/2019 & 04/Coch/2020

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