IFTHIKAR KARUPPAMVEETIL ABDUL RAHMAN,CHAVAKKAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

15)(b)(ii) was vide Finance Act, 2020, is by way of a substitution. Non- residents who were not eligible assessees under Section 144C of the Act prior to 31.03.2020, were brought within the ambit of the Section, w.e.f 01.04.2020 only. Insofar as a non- resident is concerned, it is a new imposition/coverage under a taxing provision

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

15. Having held as aforesaid, the question for further consideration is as to whether the appellant is also a primary agricultural credit society. We proceed to decide that issue. 16. In terms of Clause (a) of the Explanation to section 80P(4), “primary agricultural credit society” takes the meaning assigned to it in Part V of the BR Act. Clause

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

15. Having held as aforesaid, the question for further consideration is as to whether the appellant is also a primary agricultural credit society. We proceed to decide that issue. 16. In terms of Clause (a) of the Explanation to section 80P(4), “primary agricultural credit society” takes the meaning assigned to it in Part V of the BR Act. Clause

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

15. Having held as aforesaid, the question for further consideration is as to whether the appellant is also a primary agricultural credit society. We proceed to decide that issue. 16. In terms of Clause (a) of the Explanation to section 80P(4), “primary agricultural credit society” takes the meaning assigned to it in Part V of the BR Act. Clause

THOMAS JOHN MUTHOOT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 , THIRUVALLA, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Thomas John Muthoot Dcit, Circle - 1 Muthoot Centre, Punnen Road Thiruvalla Vs. Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Abnpt4694B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act stating that there cannot be any disallowance of the expenses on account of non- deduction of TDS if the recipient of such amount has offered the same as income in its return of income. Admittedly such amendment was effective from 01.04.2013 whereas the year before us relates

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT,TDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

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

TDS in case of entities whose income is exempt under Section 10 of the IT Act. 5 AAAAL0822C LBS CENTRE 64,44,687 No proof submitted for non- 644,469/- FOR SCIENCE deduction of Tax at source. AND TECHNOLOG Y Total 15

NAHAS HOSPITAL,PARAPPANANGADI vs. THE ACIT TDS, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Nahas Hospital Acit (Tds) (Osd) Pp/Xvll/191 Kozhiikode Vs. Parappanagadi Malappuram 676303 Pan –Aadfn5549C Appellant Respondent

TDS under the head Professional Charges under Section 194J of the Act but he uphold for the non-deduction of tax at source for payment of advertisement charges 3 M/s. Nahas Hospital under Section 194C of the Act,accordingly partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned D.R. strongly relied

M/S.KADUTHURUTHY REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE JT IT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathankaduthuruthy Regional Service Joint Commissioner Of Co-Op Bank Ltd. Income Tax (Tds) Vs. Kaduthuruthuy P.O. Trivandrum Kottayam Pan – Aaajk0315Q Appellant Respondent

Section 133(6) by the Income Tax Officer (TDS), Kottayam be deleted. F. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered and answered the questions of law raised in the grounds of appeal, by a speaking order. G. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The appeal filed

SRI. GEORGE MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

15-16 dated 15/02/2016 is opposed to law, weight of evidence, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in deleting 2 Shri George Mathew the disallowance of Rs.1,73,32,803/ - made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for not effecting TDS from

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI. GEORGE MATHEW, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

15-16 dated 15/02/2016 is opposed to law, weight of evidence, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in deleting 2 Shri George Mathew the disallowance of Rs.1,73,32,803/ - made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for not effecting TDS from

MATHIIT LEARNING PRIVATE LIMITED,SASTHAMANGALAM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS in ITA No.16, 17 & 18/ASR/2019 v) ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Elite Engineering (Hyd) Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO Ward- 1-(2) Hyderabad in ITA No.2155 to 2159/H17 - AY 13-14, ITA No.2160 to 2163/H/7 - AY 14-15 and ITA No.2164 to 2167/H/7 - AY 15-16 decided on 29.11.2018 4.1 The Hon Kerala High Court decision cited

MATHIIT LEARNING PRIVATE LIMITED,SASTHAMANGALAM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS in ITA No.16, 17 & 18/ASR/2019 v) ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Elite Engineering (Hyd) Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO Ward- 1-(2) Hyderabad in ITA No.2155 to 2159/H17 - AY 13-14, ITA No.2160 to 2163/H/7 - AY 14-15 and ITA No.2164 to 2167/H/7 - AY 15-16 decided on 29.11.2018 4.1 The Hon Kerala High Court decision cited

MATHIIT LEARNING PRIVATE LIMITED,SASTHAMANGALAM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS in ITA No.16, 17 & 18/ASR/2019 v) ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Elite Engineering (Hyd) Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO Ward- 1-(2) Hyderabad in ITA No.2155 to 2159/H17 - AY 13-14, ITA No.2160 to 2163/H/7 - AY 14-15 and ITA No.2164 to 2167/H/7 - AY 15-16 decided on 29.11.2018 4.1 The Hon Kerala High Court decision cited

KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kerala Shipping & Inalnd Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Navigtation Corporation C.R. Building, I.S. Pres Road 38/924-A, Udaya Nagar Road Kochi 682018 Vs. Gandhi Nagar Kochi 682020 [Pan: Aabck4818L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 263(1). 15. Coming to the fact of the case on hand, we note the assessee in the immediate previous assessment year 2017-18 has offered interest income however the TDS

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

15. The ground of appeal No. 7 challenges the disallowance of year end provisions of Rs. 2,86,39,000/-. It is submitted that the appellant company made provisions for various expenditures. Since the payee was not identifiable, TDS was not made on such payment and, therefore, in the immediately next year the provision was reversed and deduction was claimed

M/S.VIJAYA HOSPITALITY AND RESORTS LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADCIT(TDS), COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

TDS) is based on the correct legal position and material available on record. 11. I therefore confirm the penalty of Rs.9,12,069/-levied u/s. 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2010-11.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. Therefore, if the income is included under any one of the heads

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. Therefore, if the income is included under any one of the heads

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. Therefore, if the income is included under any one of the heads