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,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

M/S SAFA ENTERPRISES ,KODUNGALLUR vs. THE ACIT , RANGE 2 , THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

195 r.w.s. 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the AYs2010-11 and 2013-14. Therefore, the AO disallowed the same by adding to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal to the learned CIT(A) who has confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under

M/S SAFA ENTERPRISES ,KODUNGALLUR vs. THE ACIT , RANGE 2 ,CIRCLE 1, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

195 r.w.s. 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the AYs2010-11 and 2013-14. Therefore, the AO disallowed the same by adding to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal to the learned CIT(A) who has confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

TDS. The AO also considered whether the said payments\nwould fall under the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. If the said\npayment would fall u/s. 9(1)(vii), whether the said payments are eligible for\nexemption as per the DTAA. Finally, the AO arrived the conclusion that the\nnon-residents do not have any business connection

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

TDS. The AO also considered whether the said payments\nwould fall under the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. If the said\npayment would fall u/s. 9(1)(vii), whether the said payments are eligible for\nexemption as per the DTAA. Finally, the AO arrived the conclusion that the\nnon-residents do not have any business connection

INDIA GATEWAY TERMINAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,ICTT, VALLARPADAM vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE 1(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 195 of the Act. The AO also disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the year of payment of tax deduction at source of Rs. 31,315/- on the ground that the appellant had failed to remit the TDS

INDIA GATEWAY TERMINAL PRIVATE LIMITED,ICTT, VALLARPADAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 195 of the Act. The AO also disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the year of payment of tax deduction at source of Rs. 31,315/- on the ground that the appellant had failed to remit the TDS

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

TDS. The AO also considered whether the said payments would fall under the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. If the said payment would fall u/s. 9(1)(vii), whether the said payments are eligible for exemption as per the DTAA. Finally, the AO arrived the conclusion that the non-residents do not have any business connection

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

TDS. The AO also considered whether the said payments would fall under the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. If the said payment would fall u/s. 9(1)(vii), whether the said payments are eligible for exemption as per the DTAA. Finally, the AO arrived the conclusion that the non-residents do not have any business connection

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

TDS. The AO also considered whether the said payments would fall under the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. If the said payment would fall u/s. 9(1)(vii), whether the said payments are eligible for exemption as per the DTAA. Finally, the AO arrived the conclusion that the non-residents do not have any business connection

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 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act would not apply inasmuch as the remuneration received, despite being subject to TDS u/s. 194J of the Act, is not a fee for technical services, but salary, tax deduction at source on which – over which he though has no control,hadto be, if at all, u/s. 192 of the Act. We find

TRESA JOLLY,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

TDS amount deducted by the employer. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny by CASS and notice u/s.143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) was issued, for which the assessee furnished copy of acknowledgement for filing revised return and the annexure filed along with the return and declared her residential status as resident and withdrew