PALLATH NAFEESA,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, TIRUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Pallath Nafeesa The Income Tax Officer Poolakkodan House Tirur Athirumada, Punnathala Vs. Tirur, Malappuram 676552 [Pan: Alipn9300R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS reported in70 taxmann.com 45. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Bench is extracted as under: “10. In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that the interest on which the tax is sought to be deducted at source under section 194A of the Act is interest under section

KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 115JB. Further, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 21,22,943/- which was paid to Mr. Pradeep Kumar for the supply of latex. The AO treated the said amount as payment made towards the work done by him and therefore TDS should have been deducted and for the failure to deduct tax he disallowed the same

KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 115JB. Further, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 21,22,943/- which was paid to Mr. Pradeep Kumar for the supply of latex. The AO treated the said amount as payment made towards the work done by him and therefore TDS should have been deducted and for the failure to deduct tax he disallowed the same

KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 115JB. Further, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 21,22,943/- which was paid to Mr. Pradeep Kumar for the supply of latex. The AO treated the said amount as payment made towards the work done by him and therefore TDS should have been deducted and for the failure to deduct tax he disallowed the same

SHRI SURESH GEORGE,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ADIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3, THIRUVANATHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysuresh George Asstt. Director Of Income Tax Kurichyiel House International Taxation Payippad, Harippad Vs. Thiruvananthapuram Alappuzha 690 556 [Pan:Affpg5853B]

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") dated 21.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The assessee, an individual, filed his return of income for the relevant year on 25.3.2013, disclosing income at Rs.82,700/- by way of, in the main, pension from the Defence Department. On enquiry

DCIT, KANNUR vs. M/S MANJOO & CO.,, KANNUR

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2006-07

TDS of Rs.38,98,310/-. According to the Assessing Officer the assessee has not given the details of prize winning tickets and also no clarification as to whether prize winning amount relates to Kerala State Lotteries. On the basis of the details gathered from Lottery Department the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.55,88,795/- u/s. 115BB

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Circular

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

182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Circular

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

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

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

182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Circular

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

182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Circular

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

182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Circular

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

182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Circular

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

182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Circular

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. 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

182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Circular

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

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

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

182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Circular

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

182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Circular

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

182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Circular

THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SMT.GRACY BABU, ADOOR P.O.

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

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

182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Circular