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

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

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

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

KEERAN MUHAMMED BASHEER,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, ALICUT

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 SALES CORPORATION,KASARAGOD 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

KEERAN MUHAMMED BASHEER,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

KEERAN MUHAMMED BASHEER,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,COCHIN 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

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI 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

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-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

KODIYIL MUHAMMED MADANI PARTNER, ABC SALES CORPORATION,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