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

139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "tax on total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143. Explanation 3.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section

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

139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "tax on total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143. Explanation 3.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section

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

139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "tax on total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143. Explanation 3.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section

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

139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "tax on total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143. Explanation 3.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section

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 is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIB and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 139

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

1) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as a deducted in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid." 24. Thus, the Finance Act, 2010 further relaxed the rigors of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act to provide that all TDS

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

1) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as a deducted in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid." 24. Thus, the Finance Act, 2010 further relaxed the rigors of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act to provide that all TDS

ROSE GEORGE KOLLANUR,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

139(1). Accordingly, the AO made an addition of Rs.74,86,271 while completing the assessment u/s. 143(3). Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has claimed the deduction u/s. 54F based

M/S.RAJA &CO,PALAKKAD vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

TDS u/s. 194C. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act (No.2) Act 2014 with effect from 1-4-2015 is retrospective and the assessee is eligible to the benefit of the said amended provision, whereby, disallowance is limited to 30% of the amount paid instead of 100% disallowance made

M/S.RAJA &CO,PALAKKAD vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

TDS u/s. 194C. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act (No.2) Act 2014 with effect from 1-4-2015 is retrospective and the assessee is eligible to the benefit of the said amended provision, whereby, disallowance is limited to 30% of the amount paid instead of 100% disallowance made

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

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

139(1) of the Income Tax Act due to shortage of funds. However, the Ld. AR submitted that the amount was remitted during the subsequent assessment year. The Ld. AR submitted that the service tax dues were not routed through the profit and loss account but directly through the balance sheet by recognising the entire amount as a liability once

M/S.VIJAYA PALACE,,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

139, such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of previous year, and further, section 40(a)(ia) has been substituted wherein 30% of any sum payable to a resident has been substituted. According to him, though substitution to section 40(a)(ia) has been made with effect from 1/4/2015, the amendment is to be treated

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

139(1). As per Form No. 16 issued subsequently by M/s. HDFC Bank Limited, TDS has been remitted on 06-05-2010 to the Government Account as per challan no. 05194. During the course of hearing the assessee admitted the omission to offer the perquisite value of ESOP to tax. The accordingly concluded the u/s 143(3) assessing the total

THANNERMUKKOM SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

TDS Limited, No.A 809, Alappuzha Thannermukkom North, Vs. Thannermukkom, Cherthala, Alappuzha, Kerala. PIN 688527 PAN –AACAM1602K Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Kabil Chandran, Adv Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 09.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 13.12.2022 O R D E R Per: S.S. Godara, J.M. These assessee’s twin appeals for A.Ys

THANNERMUKKOM SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

TDS Limited, No.A 809, Alappuzha Thannermukkom North, Vs. Thannermukkom, Cherthala, Alappuzha, Kerala. PIN 688527 PAN –AACAM1602K Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Kabil Chandran, Adv Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 09.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 13.12.2022 O R D E R Per: S.S. Godara, J.M. These assessee’s twin appeals for A.Ys

THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR TRADERS, PATHANMTHITTA

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

1. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DC of Income-tax (2013) 36 taxmann.com 433 (Lucknow Trib.) 2. Aligarh Muslim University v. ITO (TDS) (2017) 83 taxmann.com 364 (Agra Trib.) 3. Thomas Muthoot v. DCIT (TDS) (2012) 28 taxmann.com 25 (Coch) 4. Allahabad Bank v. ITO in ITA No.5992 to 5994/Del/2012 of Delhi Bench of ITAT. The above supports the following ground

THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR TRADERS, PATHANMTHITTA

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

1. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DC of Income-tax (2013) 36 taxmann.com 433 (Lucknow Trib.) 2. Aligarh Muslim University v. ITO (TDS) (2017) 83 taxmann.com 364 (Agra Trib.) 3. Thomas Muthoot v. DCIT (TDS) (2012) 28 taxmann.com 25 (Coch) 4. Allahabad Bank v. ITO in ITA No.5992 to 5994/Del/2012 of Delhi Bench of ITAT. The above supports the following ground

THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR DEALERS, PATHANAMTHITTA

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

1. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DC of Income-tax (2013) 36 taxmann.com 433 (Lucknow Trib.) 2. Aligarh Muslim University v. ITO (TDS) (2017) 83 taxmann.com 364 (Agra Trib.) 3. Thomas Muthoot v. DCIT (TDS) (2012) 28 taxmann.com 25 (Coch) 4. Allahabad Bank v. ITO in ITA No.5992 to 5994/Del/2012 of Delhi Bench of ITAT. The above supports the following ground