EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

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

3. GROUND: Interest computation u/s 201(1A) for short deduction of salary is erroneous. 3.1. As per Section 192, the TDS on salary is to be computed at the average rate in each month based on estimate of the taxable income of the employees. Section 192 also permits to increase or reduce the amount of deduction in subsequent months

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

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

3. GROUND: Interest computation u/s 201(1A) for short deduction of salary is erroneous. 3.1. As per Section 192, the TDS on salary is to be computed at the average rate in each month based on estimate of the taxable income of the employees. Section 192 also permits to increase or reduce the amount of deduction in subsequent months

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

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

3. GROUND: Interest computation u/s 201(1A) for short deduction of salary is erroneous. 3.1. As per Section 192, the TDS on salary is to be computed at the average rate in each month based on estimate of the taxable income of the employees. Section 192 also permits to increase or reduce the amount of deduction in subsequent months

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

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

3. GROUND: Interest computation u/s 201(1A) for short deduction of salary is erroneous. 3.1. As per Section 192, the TDS on salary is to be computed at the average rate in each month based on estimate of the taxable income of the employees. Section 192 also permits to increase or reduce the amount of deduction in subsequent months

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

3 was allowed in favour of the assessee, ground No. 3.1 does not require any adjudication. Accordingly, ground No. 3.1 stands dismissed. 10. The ground of appeal Nos. 4 to 4.2 challenge the disallowance of excessive claim u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. The in-house R&D Units of the Company located at Limda (Vadodra) and Perambra (Kochi

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR vs. KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavban, Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 Vs. Kannur Building Materials Co-Op. Society Ltd .......... Respondent No. C 1741, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur 670561 [Pan: Aaaak7151K]

TDS under section 194C, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given a well-reasoned finding that the impugned payments towards wages, loading/unloading, and transportation were directly made to individual workers without any element of a contract or sub-contract. The Ld. AO has not brought on record any evidence to show that these expenses involved a contractor

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

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

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

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

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

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

194C of the Act. The AO also imposed interest u/s. 234A & 234B of the Act in the tax calculation sheet. The assessee challenged the above order before the CIT(A) and contended that the additions are not sustainable since the same were not based on any incriminating materials. In respect of addition made by disallowing the advertisement expenditure on account

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

194C of the Act. The AO also imposed interest u/s. 234A & 234B of the Act in the tax calculation sheet. The assessee challenged the above order before the CIT(A) and contended that the additions are not sustainable since the same were not based on any incriminating materials. In respect of addition made by disallowing the advertisement expenditure on account

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

194C of the Act. The AO also imposed interest u/s. 234A & 234B of the Act in the tax calculation sheet. The assessee challenged the above order before the CIT(A) and contended that the additions are not sustainable since the same were not based on any incriminating materials. In respect of addition made by disallowing the advertisement expenditure on account

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

194C of the Act. The AO also imposed interest u/s. 234A & 234B of the Act in the tax calculation sheet. The assessee challenged the above order before the CIT(A) and contended that the additions are not sustainable since the same were not based on any incriminating materials. In respect of addition made by disallowing the advertisement expenditure on account

M DASAN CIEIT,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS on the payments made to contractor, which it was liable to deduct as per the provisions of Section 194C of the Act. Further, there is no merit in the submission made by the appellant. Therefore, the AO was right in invoking the provisions of section 201 & 201(1A) of the Act. hence, the demand raised

M DASANCIEIT,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS on the payments made to contractor, which it was liable to deduct as per the provisions of Section 194C of the Act. Further, there is no merit in the submission made by the appellant. Therefore, the AO was right in invoking the provisions of section 201 & 201(1A) of the Act. hence, the demand raised

MDASAN CIEIT,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS on the payments made to contractor, which it was liable to deduct as per the provisions of Section 194C of the Act. Further, there is no merit in the submission made by the appellant. Therefore, the AO was right in invoking the provisions of section 201 & 201(1A) of the Act. hence, the demand raised

M DASAN CIEIT,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO (TDS), KOZHIKKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS on the payments made to contractor, which it was liable to deduct as per the provisions of Section 194C of the Act. Further, there is no merit in the submission made by the appellant. Therefore, the AO was right in invoking the provisions of section 201 & 201(1A) of the Act. hence, the demand raised