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 10,13,896 4. Transportation charges 194C 1,21,000 5. Freight charges 194C 78,800 6. Commission of sale 194H 1,26,900 7. Brokerage 194H 1,02,425 8

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

8- Consequential levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. 8.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned DC IT and DRP have erred confirming the consequential levy of interest under section 2348 of the Act at Rs.5,60,56,5l0. Ground No.9 - Consequential levy of interest under section 2340 and 244A

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

8- Consequential levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. 8.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned DC IT and DRP have erred confirming the consequential levy of interest under section 2348 of the Act at Rs.5,60,56,5l0. Ground No.9 - Consequential levy of interest under section 2340 and 244A

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

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

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

8) of the Act. The sub-clause (9) of 270A also deals about the six occasions of misreporting of income and because of that the underreporting of income was made. Therefore both the provisions of sub-section (2) as well as sub-section (9) of section 270A gave different types of underreporting as well as misreporting of income. Inspite

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

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)

8. Learned DR, however, placed reliance on the decision of SMC Bench, Bengaluru, rendered in the case of Shri. Jayaprakasha Rai Vs. DCIT ITA No.681/Bang/2021, order dated 13.06.2022. I have perused the aforesaid decision and I find that the said decision was a case of transfer of licence from one person to another where pending the formality of transfer

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

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

8. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that the AO, for AY 2008-09, pursuant to the remand order by the Hon'ble High Court, accepted the contention of the appellant that there was no obligation to deduct tax at source. Accordingly, no addition was made invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He submits that

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

8. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that the AO, for AY 2008-09, pursuant to the remand order by the Hon'ble High Court, accepted the contention of the appellant that there was no obligation to deduct tax at source. Accordingly, no addition was made invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He submits that

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

8. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that the AO, for AY 2008-09, pursuant to the remand order by the Hon'ble High Court, accepted the contention of the appellant that there was no obligation to deduct tax at source. Accordingly, no addition was made invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He submits that

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

8 Receipt of royalty 4,36,55,867 9 Payment of royalty 1,49,06,399 10 Receipt of research and testing services 12,81,14,109 11 Receipt of corporate marketing services 391,40,800 12 Provision of corporate purchase 23,08,219 services 13 Provision of corporate information 2,32,10,5456 technology services 14 Investment in equity

MUAHAMMED JABIR,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

8,83,19,970/- as observed by the AO, leading to an addition of Rs. 3,08,91,597/- in the assessment. Additionally, the stocks recorded in the tally/books were exclusive of GST, whereas the stock considered by the AO, as per the excel sheets, was inclusive of GST. This discrepancy resulted in the impugned difference in stock. The assessee

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE-1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

8,83,19,970/- as observed by the AO, leading to an addition of Rs. 3,08,91,597/- in the assessment. Additionally, the stocks recorded in the tally/books were exclusive of GST, whereas the stock considered by the AO, as per the excel sheets, was inclusive of GST. This discrepancy resulted in the impugned difference in stock. The assessee

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

8,83,19,970/- as observed by the AO, leading to an addition of Rs. 3,08,91,597/- in the assessment. Additionally, the stocks recorded in the tally/books were exclusive of GST, whereas the stock considered by the AO, as per the excel sheets, was inclusive of GST. This discrepancy resulted in the impugned difference in stock. The assessee

ABC BUILDWARE INDIA (P) LIMITED,PARIYARAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

8,83,19,970/- as observed by the AO, leading to an addition of Rs. 3,08,91,597/- in the assessment. Additionally, the stocks recorded in the tally/books were exclusive of GST, whereas the stock considered by the AO, as per the excel sheets, was inclusive of GST. This discrepancy resulted in the impugned difference in stock. The assessee