M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (11 of 1964).’ (emphasis, ours) Whether the said provision, inapplicable in the instant case inasmuch as the notices of demand stand issued much prior to 01/10/2014, would save the same is to be seen. The Hon’ble Court was, however, unanimous in that a set aside

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (11 of 1964).’ (emphasis, ours) Whether the said provision, inapplicable in the instant case inasmuch as the notices of demand stand issued much prior to 01/10/2014, would save the same is to be seen. The Hon’ble Court was, however, unanimous in that a set aside

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

3,09,000/- (i.e. total receipt of Rs. 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

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)

3. The short issue involved in the present appeal is whether the payments made by the Assessee-hospital to the Doctors were subject to withholding the tax at source under section 194 of the Act applicable to payment of ‘professional fee’ or section 192 of the Act applicable to payment of ‘salaries’. 4. Vide order dated 31/07/2021 passed under section

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 SOUTH INDIAN BANK,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

TDS amounts to Rs. 5,05,82,900/-. 3. Interest u/s.234B amounting to Rs. 5,81,36,331/ - only has been levied in the ordergenerated by the system.Interest u/s.234B amounting toRs.5,81,13,891/- only has been levied in the manual tax calculation sheet enclosed with the order. As per our working, interest u/s.234B amounts to Rs.5

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

13. Ground no. 3 pertains to the disallowance made u/s. 40A(3) of the Act, amounting to Rs.6,58,585/- where the assessee is said to have incurred expenditure, the payment or the aggregate of the payment made to a person in a day exceeds Rs.20,000/- where the payment is made otherwise then by an account payee cheque

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

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

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

3 of 8\nITA Nos. 720 to 724/Coch/2023\n5. The AO while giving effect to the remand order of the Tribunal, had\nexamined the provision under which the payments made to the two entitles\nwould be liable to TDS. The AO also considered whether the said payments\nwould fall under the provision of section

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

13,67,280/ - were not brought into India directly "by the assessee" as required under section 10B(3) of the Act. 5. The value of deemed export was brought into India by the assessee's sister concern M/s. Wilton Weavers Pvt. Ltd. and hence, it cannot be included in the export turnover eligible for deduction

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

3 read with Section 56 of the BR Act, 1949, the primary co-operative bank cannot be a primary agricultural credit society. As such co- operative bank must be engaged in the business of banking as defined by Section 5(b) of the BR Act, 1949, which means accepting, for the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money

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

3. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs.7,49,20,296/- u/s 40(a)(ia) without considering the submissions and case laws put forth by the appellant. 4. The appellants submits that it had deducted tax at source on the various payments made during the period

CENTRE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT,AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

TDS statement vis-à-vis the income shown in the books of account was mainly on account of method of accounting adopted by the assessee. In view of the above, the ld.AR submitted that the books of account of the assessee should not be rejected, and the assessment should be framed after considering the same. Thus, the ld.AR prayed

CENTRE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT,AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

TDS statement vis-à-vis the income shown in the books of account was mainly on account of method of accounting adopted by the assessee. In view of the above, the ld.AR submitted that the books of account of the assessee should not be rejected, and the assessment should be framed after considering the same. Thus, the ld.AR prayed

CENTRE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT,AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), SHAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

TDS statement vis-à-vis the income shown in the books of account was mainly on account of method of accounting adopted by the assessee. In view of the above, the ld.AR submitted that the books of account of the assessee should not be rejected, and the assessment should be framed after considering the same. Thus, the ld.AR prayed