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

TDS as per the provisions contained in section 40 (a)(i) with Section 195 of the Act being the payment in question does not give rise to or constitute income, which is chargeable to tax in India either on account of provisions of the Act or provisions contained in DTAA. 6

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

6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that the AO, for AY 2008-09, pursuant to the remand order

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

6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that the AO, for AY 2008-09, pursuant to the remand order

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

6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that the AO, for AY 2008-09, pursuant to the remand order

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]

TDS certificate/s would, for example, notwithstanding the payment being made by another, issued by the employer only, and tax deducted deposited under his TAN, while in the instant case, it is the name and TAN (MUMB 08953A) of BSM that is stated (in the asseseee’s return) in respect of the Employer! Why? That apart, payment of remuneration

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

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

TDS, took a view that provisions of section 273B of the I.T.Act is not applicable and after referring the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of US Technology International Limited, reported in (2010) 195 taxman 323 (Ker.) imposed penalty of Rs.9,12,060. 3 ITA No.96/Coch/2015. M/s.Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Limited. 6

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 amount in respect of the above sum. The AO also made a disallowance

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 amount in respect of the above sum. The AO also made a disallowance

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