M/S WAYANAD DIST. CO.OP BANK LTD.,WAYANAD vs. ITO(TDS), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

TDS thereon at the rate in force. The Explanation below sub-section (1) of Section 194A of the Act clarifies

M/S WAYANAD DIST. CO.OP BANK LTD.,WAYANAD vs. ITO(TDS), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

TDS thereon at the rate in force. The Explanation below sub-section (1) of Section 194A of the Act clarifies

M/S WAYANAD DIST. CO.OP BANK LTD.,WAYANAD vs. ITO(TDS), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

TDS thereon at the rate in force. The Explanation below sub-section (1) of Section 194A of the Act clarifies

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

TDS only on a sum of Rs. 1,32,42,920/- and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source treating it as mere reimbursement of expenditure to MPCMS. The said payee, i.e. MPCMS also raised different bills. The AO was of the opinion that the money paid towards management consultancy charges under composite contract and the contract

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

TDS only on a sum of Rs. 1,32,42,920/- and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source treating it as mere reimbursement of expenditure to MPCMS. The said payee, i.e. MPCMS also raised different bills. The AO was of the opinion that the money paid towards management consultancy charges under composite contract and the contract

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

TDS only on a sum of Rs. 1,32,42,920/- and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source treating it as mere reimbursement of expenditure to MPCMS. The said payee, i.e. MPCMS also raised different bills. The AO was of the opinion that the money paid towards management consultancy charges under composite contract and the contract

M/S.VENNALA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, KOCHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee was rejected by the CIT(A) for assessment year under consideration

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

1. The reasons recorded for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 was not communicated to the appellant. Assessment is liable to be set aside. 2. The Assessing Officer ought to have seen that as per section 194A(3)(v) and 194A(3)(viia)(a), the appellant is not liable to deduct TDS

VADAKKEVILA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1 (SC) and therefore, the assessee’s instant fifth substantive ground succeeds in very terms. 8. The assessee's 6th to 8th substantive grounds have been contested by the department in light of Totagar's Cooperative Sale Society Ltd., vs. ITO [2010] 322 ITR 283 (SC) and Pr. CIT & Anr. vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society

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)

194A r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the learned CIT-DR submitted that the assessee cannot take the benefit of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which was made effective from 01.04.2013 prospectively whereas the year in dispute is much prior to such amendment. Therefore, the assessee cannot

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

194A of the Income Tax Act 1969. B. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in arriving into a conclusion that the Income tax Officer (TDS) is an authority to call for information under Section 133(6) of Income tax Act without appreciating the fact that

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS(INDIA) P.LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

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

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

TDS was not applicable.” ITA No.422/Coch/2019. 3 M/s.Mangalam Publications India (P) Ltd. 5. The learned AR did not raise any contention with regard to ground No.3 above. The assessee has filed a paper book enclosing the details of advances made to sister concern, copies of audited accounts of the assessee as on 31.03.2012 and audited accounts of various sister concerns

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

M/S.VIJAYA PALACE,,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

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

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

194A would apply. It was submitted that even if there was failure to deduct tax at source, the disallowance should have been restricted to thirty percent of the amount as the amendment to the provisions of s. 40(a)(ia) was retrospective. 6. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival

THE ITO (TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR PRINTERS, PATHANAMTHITTA

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

1. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DC of Income-tax (2013) 36 taxmann.com 433 (Lucknow Trib.) 2. Aligarh Muslim University v. ITO (TDS) (2017) 83 taxmann.com 364 (Agra Trib.) 3. Thomas Muthoot v. DCIT (TDS) (2012) 28 taxmann.com 25 (Coch) 4. Allahabad Bank v. ITO in ITA No.5992 to 5994/Del/2012 of Delhi Bench of ITAT. The above supports the following ground

THE ITO (TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR PRINTERS, PATHANAMTHITTA

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

1. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DC of Income-tax (2013) 36 taxmann.com 433 (Lucknow Trib.) 2. Aligarh Muslim University v. ITO (TDS) (2017) 83 taxmann.com 364 (Agra Trib.) 3. Thomas Muthoot v. DCIT (TDS) (2012) 28 taxmann.com 25 (Coch) 4. Allahabad Bank v. ITO in ITA No.5992 to 5994/Del/2012 of Delhi Bench of ITAT. The above supports the following ground

THE ITO (TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR PRINTERS, PATHANAMTHITTA

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

1. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DC of Income-tax (2013) 36 taxmann.com 433 (Lucknow Trib.) 2. Aligarh Muslim University v. ITO (TDS) (2017) 83 taxmann.com 364 (Agra Trib.) 3. Thomas Muthoot v. DCIT (TDS) (2012) 28 taxmann.com 25 (Coch) 4. Allahabad Bank v. ITO in ITA No.5992 to 5994/Del/2012 of Delhi Bench of ITAT. The above supports the following ground

THE ITO (TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR PRINTERS, PATHANAMTHITTA

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

1. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DC of Income-tax (2013) 36 taxmann.com 433 (Lucknow Trib.) 2. Aligarh Muslim University v. ITO (TDS) (2017) 83 taxmann.com 364 (Agra Trib.) 3. Thomas Muthoot v. DCIT (TDS) (2012) 28 taxmann.com 25 (Coch) 4. Allahabad Bank v. ITO in ITA No.5992 to 5994/Del/2012 of Delhi Bench of ITAT. The above supports the following ground

THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR DEALERS, PATHANAMTHITTA

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

1. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. DC of Income-tax (2013) 36 taxmann.com 433 (Lucknow Trib.) 2. Aligarh Muslim University v. ITO (TDS) (2017) 83 taxmann.com 364 (Agra Trib.) 3. Thomas Muthoot v. DCIT (TDS) (2012) 28 taxmann.com 25 (Coch) 4. Allahabad Bank v. ITO in ITA No.5992 to 5994/Del/2012 of Delhi Bench of ITAT. The above supports the following ground