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

section 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,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

section 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

MARIAMMA JOSEPH,KOTTAYAMN vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is decided on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasmariamma Joseph Asst. Cit, Central Circle Hotel Floral Park Kottayam 686001 Gandhinagar Vs. Kottayam 686008 [Pan:Accpj9135F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS, Adv. Tax or self-assessment tax is deemed to be given.’ The same stood confirmed in first appeal; the ld. CIT(A) holding as: ‘In the present case, assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was passed for the A.Y 2010-11 on 28.3.2013. The appellate order was passed on 16.2.2016. The order of the Assessing Officer merged with

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

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

143(2) and 142(1) for which the assessee filed their response. In the said notices, the AO had pointed out that the assessee had not deducted Page 2 of 14 TDS on interest payments made from 20 branches and therefore sought for the details along with the TDS amount deducted thereon. The assessee submitted that during the year they

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PR CIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Asianet Satellite Vs. Pcit, Communications Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. 2A, 2Nd Floor, Carnival Technopark, Technopark, Kazhakuttom, Karyavattom, P. O., Thiruvananthapuram. Pan : Aaeca 5548 E Appellant Respondent

section 143(3) of the Act with a direction to redo the assessment after verifying the facts and giving opportunity to be heard to the Appellant, ignoring the fact that details were submitted during the course of the assessment proceedings and only after due satisfaction to the enquiries, allowed the expense towards interest on delayed payment of service

M/S ST. ALPHONSA TIMBERS AND TRADERS (PVT) LTD,MARADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

143(1) on 10.09.2013. Subsequently, CPC TDS passed an order u/s 154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act on 28.01.2016, raising a total demand of Rs.11,160/- A.Y. 2013-14 Mr. St. Alphonsa Timbers and Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.9,153/- on account of late filing fee u/s 234E & Rs.2,002/- as Interest u/s 220(2) of the Act thereon).” 4. Aggrieved

M/S ST. ALPHONSA TIMBERS & TRADERS (PVT) LTD,MARADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

143(1) on 10.09.2013. Subsequently, CPC TDS passed an order u/s 154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act on 28.01.2016, raising a total demand of Rs.11,160/- A.Y. 2013-14 Mr. St. Alphonsa Timbers and Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.9,153/- on account of late filing fee u/s 234E & Rs.2,002/- as Interest u/s 220(2) of the Act thereon).” 4. Aggrieved

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)

TDS credit on the same. Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 13.02.2013, disallowing TDS credit

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

143(3) of the Act, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 256,58,53,626. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), while computing the tax liability for the year under consideration, also granted MAT credit to the assessee amounting to ₹ 22,59,55,822 relating to the assessment years 2006-07 (₹ 649.57 lakh) and 2007-08 (₹ 1609.9 lakh) under

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

143(3) read with Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

143(3) read with Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

143(3) read with Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

143(3) read with Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

143(3) read with Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

143(3) read with Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

143(3) read with Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

143(3) read with Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting

N J THOMAS AND CO,KOTTAYAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

143(3) read with section 144B of the Act added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, the AO also disallowed the interest expense due to the non-deduction of TDS