PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,TRICHUR vs. THE ITO,TDS,, TRICHUR

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

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

154 is void as the original order under section 201(1)/(1A) is barred by limitation. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order under section 201(1) / (1A) was passed on 29th March, 2016 which is beyond the period of six year, from the end of the financial year and hence the said order is time barred

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

154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case

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

154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case

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

154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case

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

154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case

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)

7. Further, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court (Ker) held as under: - “9.1 Stated briefly, the writ petitioner challenges the intimation received under section 200A from the respondent/Revenue calling upon the writ petitioner to pay late fee for delayed filing of quarterly statements of TDS. The periods for which the notices are issued are stated as prior

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)

7. Further, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court (Ker) held as under: - “9.1 Stated briefly, the writ petitioner challenges the intimation received under section 200A from the respondent/Revenue calling upon the writ petitioner to pay late fee for delayed filing of quarterly statements of TDS. The periods for which the notices are issued are stated as prior

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 only compensatory and not penal in nature. The learned AR also submitted that the AO has initiated proceeding under section 154 of the Act on the same issue of interest on delayed payments of statutory dues and no order was passed by the AO. It is therefore the Page 6 of 8 submission of learned AR that when

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)

7. I have heard the rival submissions. Learned Counsel for the assessee brought to my notice the decision of the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in the case of Jai Ambey Wines Vs. ACIT, order dated 11.01.2017. In the said order, identical issue with regard to claim of TCS in the hands of the partnership firm when the licence stands

M/S.MAGNUM BUILDTECH,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS from the labour charges paid amounting to Rs.2434192/- for AY 2006-07. The assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 154 of the Act on 02/08/2010. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.2434192/- on account of disallowance of labour charges u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee in advancement

SRI.A.M.FAZIL,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, ALAPPUZHA

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

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

Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. Appellant prays that the order of the Assessing Officer, withdrawing credit of TDS of Rs.2,57,500/- may be struck down as bad in law.” 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual, who is film producer and director. For the assessment year

M/S. POYANIL HOSPITAL,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE ITO, TDS, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2013-14 M/S.Poyanil Hospital, Ito, Vs. Poyanil, Tds, Kozhencherry. Alappuzha. Pan :Aacfm 7322 F Assessee Respondent

154 r.w.s. 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), levying a late fee under section 234E of the Act amounting to Rs.20,000/- for the delay in filing Form 26Q for the 3rd quarter of the Financial Year 2012-13. Aggrieved by the levy of late fee under section 234E of the Act, the assessee preferred

QATAR AIRWAYS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS as prescribed under section 197 of the Income Tax Act. The said error was corrected by filing necessary correction returns and thereby the said demand was fully cancelled and there was no default reflected at TRACES website for the above- mentioned quarter. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not taking into consideration the submissions along with

QATAR AIRWAYS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS as prescribed under section 197 of the Income Tax Act. The said error was corrected by filing necessary correction returns and thereby the said demand was fully cancelled and there was no default reflected at TRACES website for the above- mentioned quarter. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not taking into consideration the submissions along with

QATAR AIRWAYS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS as prescribed under section 197 of the Income Tax Act. The said error was corrected by filing necessary correction returns and thereby the said demand was fully cancelled and there was no default reflected at TRACES website for the above- mentioned quarter. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not taking into consideration the submissions along with

QATAR AIRWAYS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS as prescribed under section 197 of the Income Tax Act. The said error was corrected by filing necessary correction returns and thereby the said demand was fully cancelled and there was no default reflected at TRACES website for the above- mentioned quarter. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not taking into consideration the submissions along with

QATAR AIRWAYS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS as prescribed under section 197 of the Income Tax Act. The said error was corrected by filing necessary correction returns and thereby the said demand was fully cancelled and there was no default reflected at TRACES website for the above- mentioned quarter. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not taking into consideration the submissions along with

QATAR AIRWAYS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS as prescribed under section 197 of the Income Tax Act. The said error was corrected by filing necessary correction returns and thereby the said demand was fully cancelled and there was no default reflected at TRACES website for the above- mentioned quarter. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not taking into consideration the submissions along with

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

TDS deducted and Page 5 of 7 the final tax demand as per the order under section 154 (page 33 of Paper