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

5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the main issue is the disallowance of Rs 67, 30, 90,917/- u/s 40(a)(ia) being payment of interest on borrowed funds from firms in which appellant is a partner without TDS u/s 194A. The Ld. AR submitted that Section I94A does not apply

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. 5

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.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.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

5. Against this the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that under the terms of the trade, the rice is dispatched by the outstation dealers for delivery at the assessee’s business place. The assessee on receipt of the goods, verifies the quality and quantity and accepts the rice if it is as per the order

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

5. Against this the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that under the terms of the trade, the rice is dispatched by the outstation dealers for delivery at the assessee’s business place. The assessee on receipt of the goods, verifies the quality and quantity and accepts the rice if it is as per the order

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

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

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

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

5 of the Electricity Duty Act, 1963." Applying the same logic, in the instant case, the CIT(A) held that liability of Service Tax payable cannot be disallowed as the same was not claimed by the assessee as an expense. Thus, relying on the judgment of the Kerala I.T.A. Nos. 653/Coch/2019 & 04/Coch/2020 High Court and the order passed

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

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

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]

5. The facts of the case are that out of the total sum debited in the profit & loss account under the head interest, a sum of Rs. 1,00,13,656/- was towards the sister concerns of the assessee. The assesses had not deducted TDS as per section I94A of the Act. Accordingly, this

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]

5. The facts of the case are that out of the total sum debited in the profit & loss account under the head interest, a sum of Rs. 1,00,13,656/- was towards the sister concerns of the assessee. The assesses had not deducted TDS as per section I94A of the Act. Accordingly, this

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR vs. KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavban, Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 Vs. Kannur Building Materials Co-Op. Society Ltd .......... Respondent No. C 1741, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur 670561 [Pan: Aaaak7151K]

139(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee during the impugned assessment year engaged in sand mining and selling. The object of the society to control the spending, to encouragement investment, self-sufficiency, co-operative attitude among members of the society and also to take measures to improve the financial, educational and overall

KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

TDS and refund due to the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant had not filed return of income either voluntarily under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act or in response to the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Thus there was no valid return of income for claiming refund as stipulated under the provisions of section