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

2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 464/Coch/2023 for AY 2006-07 are stated herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company

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

2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 464/Coch/2023 for AY 2006-07 are stated herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company

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

2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 464/Coch/2023 for AY 2006-07 are stated herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company

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

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

2 & 3 there was a disallowance of Rs.55,78,022/- under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of tax in respect of payments made to non-residents. Payments were made towards exhibition expenses, commission and sample testing charges to the non- residents. As per the AO TDS has to be deducted by the assessee before remitting

M/S.VIJAYA HOSPITALITY AND RESORTS LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADCIT(TDS), COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

2 ITA No.96/Coch/2015. M/s.Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Limited. has been imposed u/s 271C of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.9,12,060. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a company engaged in the business of running a resort, namely, `The Elephant Court’ at Thekkady. For the assessment year 2010-2011, the assessee had deducted

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

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

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

2 of 8\nITA Nos. 720 to 724/Coch/2023\n2. All these appeals are related to the same assessee and the issue\ninvolved in all the appeals are similar and therefore we decided to take up all\nthe appeals together and pass a common order for the sake of convenience.\n3. We will take up the appeal in ITA No. 720/Coch/2023

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

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

2 of 8\nITA Nos. 720 to 724/Coch/2023\n2. All these appeals are related to the same assessee and the issue\ninvolved in all the appeals are similar and therefore we decided to take up all\nthe appeals together and pass a common order for the sake of convenience.\n3. We will take up the appeal in ITA No. 720/Coch/2023

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

2,93,59,617/- on the ground that the appellant had failed to deduct tax at source under the provisions of 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

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

2,93,59,617/- on the ground that the appellant had failed to deduct tax at source under the provisions of 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

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

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