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)

143(1). The same, computed at Rs. 6,45,503, was thus in excess. The amendment to s. 234B(3) by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015, would not be applicable. As per the Assessing Officer(AO) interest on the differential tax of Rs. 15.37 lacs was to be worked from the first day of the assessment year, i.e., 01/4/2010

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

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

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

section 139”. The assessee also submitted that though the amendment made effective from 01.04.2010 it is retrospectively applicable as it is curative in nature. The CIT(A) did not agree with the contention of the assessee and accordingly upheld the disallowance by relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thomas George Muthoot

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

143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act on 30.12.2016 proposing to make the following additions: - i. TP adjustment – Rs. 3,48,96,832/- ii. Disallowance of additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the ground that the plant and machinery was acquired and put to use during the previous year relevant to AY 2012- 13. Since

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

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

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- being the amount paid to Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy & Management (hereinafter called “MPCMS”) towards professional charges/consultancy u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. On further appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. However, on further appeal before this Tribunal

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

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- being the amount paid to Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy & Management (hereinafter called “MPCMS”) towards professional charges/consultancy u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. On further appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. However, on further appeal before this Tribunal

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

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- being the amount paid to Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy & Management (hereinafter called “MPCMS”) towards professional charges/consultancy u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. On further appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. However, on further appeal before this Tribunal

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

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 income

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

1. Total income considered in the order generated by the system amounts to Rs. 268,45,53,626/- As per the manual tax calculation sheet enclosed with the order as well as our workings, total income amounts to Rs.268,43,53,626/-only. 3 2. TDS considered in the manual tax calculation sheet enclosed with the order amounts to Rs.5

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

1,38,31,286, being the difference in receipts as per ITR and contractual receipts as per Form 26AS, the assessee did not furnish any supporting evidence, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 01/06/2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further

SUBAIDA ABDURAHIMAN,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), CALICUT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2023-24

section 143(1). For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing it is prayed that suitable 8 directions may be issued to give credit for this sum of Rs.1,20,000/- deducted from rent received by the appellant towards TDS

GEORGE KOCHUPARAMBIL, PROP. UNITED GRANITES & METALS,THODUPUZHA vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Juduicial Member & Ms. Padmavathy Sshri George Kochuparambil Kochuparambil House Dcit/Acit, Central Vazhithala P.O. Vs. Circle Thodupuzha Kochi Idukki 685583 Pan – Afjpk9650E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri M. Jarasekhar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2023

1) of the I. T Act, 1961.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his original return of income on 25.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs.4,12,82,340/- and a net agricultural income of Rs.9,24,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny for the following reasons: - (i) Large agricultural

BHARATH RASIKLAL SHAH,COCHIN vs. PCIT KOCHI-1, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

1) of Section 263, as the order of AO has considered the TDS deducted and paid by the Appellant to the income tax department supported by the Exhibit P23 which is speaking evidence of the compliance followed by the Appellant. Hence, the order of the NFAC or the first assessment u/s 143