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

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

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

TDS) 21 taxman.com.489(All.) wherein it was held that in a case where assessee has not been deducted at source, short deducted tax cannot be realized from deductor and liability to pay such tax shall continue to be with payee/deductee direct, whose income is to be charged and a person who fails to deduct tax at source, at best

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

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

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 on the fact that the assessee has paid the amount of Rs.98,20,984 within 3 years

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

MRS SHABANA AKBAR,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO WARD 1(4), KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 194H and also issued credit notes. When appellant pointed out that the TDS provisions are not applicable on such incentives, the principal stopped deducting TDS from June 2018. It was not correct for the Commissioner (Appeals). NFAC to ignore the purchase agreement and credit notes filed by the appellant in support of the claim and confirm the addition made

M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

143 (3) passed by the AO. h) Further, without prejudice to the submissions made above, in any case, the PCIT ought to have noted that the impugned Employees' contribution of PF collected by the appellant aggregating to Rs.1,17,31,298/- were remitted 'much before the due date of filing of return of income and this fact was not disputed

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

TDS is a deductible expenses under section 37(1) of the Act, since the payment is compensatory in nature and not any expense towards infringement of any law or an offence prohibited by law. Further there are various judicial precedents supporting the aforesaid contention of the Appellant. Ground No. 3 - Relief 3.1. The Appellant respectfully prays that directions be given

ADCIT, THRISSUR vs. THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD,, TRICHUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.635 /Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), St. Mary’S College Road, Thrissur. Thrissur-680020. [Pan: Aabct 0024D]

143(1)(a) of the Act and no interest u/s. 244A was allowed by the Assessing officer. The refund was arising due to the excess payment of self-assessment tax. After examining the legislative history of section 244A which was brought on the statute book from the assessment year 1989- 90 in place of sections

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,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