THE KAREEPPA PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.D,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2017-18

TDS payments made to non-members. 3. The Revenue vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the assessee viz., Kareeppa Panchayat Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. is in fact a cooperative bank covered u/sec.80P(4) of the Act than a cooperative credit society eligible for the impugned detailed discussion u/sec.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. We sought

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

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

2 of 14 TDS on interest payments made from 20 branches and therefore sought for the details along with the TDS amount deducted thereon. The assessee submitted that during the year they paid interest to co-operative banks, scheduled banks, reserve fund from co-operative banks, savings bank and ACS fund (to other co-operative societies) and therefore they need

MR. PREM MUKUNDAN ,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. (Judicial Member), Ms. Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member)

section 154 of the Act ought to have been entertained by the Revenue. 10. In this regard, learned DR also made submission that the decision of the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, was in relation to provisions of Rule 37BA of the Rules which is applicable to TDS and not to TCS and it is only Rule 37-I of the Rules

M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

TDS - Large other expenses claimed in the Profit and Loss Account. n) The Assessing officer after examining reasons for selecting the return for limited scrutiny based on the records and submissions made by the assessee accepted the return and completed the Limited scrutiny by order dated 27.10.2017 without any adjustment to the loss as returned. o) The reason for initiation

ELAVANCHALIL ABDUL BASHEER,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer .......... Appellant Oittannmakm, Koduvally, Kozhikode 673572 [Pan: Bbwpb4939D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Agriculture’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 21.12.2020 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,60,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhokode

TDS of Rs. 4,64,100/- was paid by the buyer of the property. Based on this information the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why the above property cannot be considered as non-agricultural land and also submitted the evidence in support of the agricultural expenditure incurred. It was stated that for failure of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. MUTHOOT HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOZHENCHERRY

Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the same. Thus, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

2) of the Act. Since the Assessee had failed to deduct tax under the said section, the Assessee has been treated as ‘Assessee is in default’ and was directed to pay INR.1,52,13,509/- under section 201(1) and interest of INR.69,98,214/- under section 201(1A) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before

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

13. Since the assets were put to use for less than 180 days, additional depreciation was allowed only at 10% as per second proviso to section 32 of the Act. Balance additional depreciation cannot be allowed in subsequent AY, i.e. the year under consideration – Rs. 36,21,58,356/- iii. Disallowance of pre-operative expenditure details of which were extracted

IFTHIKAR KARUPPAMVEETIL ABDUL RAHMAN,CHAVAKKAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2 dated 29.11.2023 is bad in law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed. E. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Learned AO/erred in making an addition of Rs.17,50,000/- being the premium paid component of the Life Insurance Policy

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

TDS amounts to Rs. 5,05,82,900/-. 3. Interest u/s.234B amounting to Rs. 5,81,36,331/ - only has been levied in the ordergenerated by the system.Interest u/s.234B amounting toRs.5,81,13,891/- only has been levied in the manual tax calculation sheet enclosed with the order. As per our working, interest u/s.234B amounts to Rs.5

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

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

2(40)), where the same is subsequently set aside for fresh assessment. Despite it being subsequently set aside, the Hon'ble Court held it to be the date of the original order. The reason that found favour with the Hon'ble Court, as a reading of it’s detailed judgment shows, is that once the tax paid, either

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

2(40)), where the same is subsequently set aside for fresh assessment. Despite it being subsequently set aside, the Hon'ble Court held it to be the date of the original order. The reason that found favour with the Hon'ble Court, as a reading of it’s detailed judgment shows, is that once the tax paid, either

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

2(40)), where the same is subsequently set aside for fresh assessment. Despite it being subsequently set aside, the Hon'ble Court held it to be the date of the original order. The reason that found favour with the Hon'ble Court, as a reading of it’s detailed judgment shows, is that once the tax paid, either

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

2(40)), where the same is subsequently set aside for fresh assessment. Despite it being subsequently set aside, the Hon'ble Court held it to be the date of the original order. The reason that found favour with the Hon'ble Court, as a reading of it’s detailed judgment shows, is that once the tax paid, either

CHIRAKKAL UPABOKTHRU SAHAKARNA SANGAM LTD NO. C1480,KANNUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANNUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 to 2015-2016 are allowed

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

13,8601-, which as the name implies is a society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. After such formation, the society had obtained a license from Reserve Bank of India to carryon banking business. Exemption was claimed u/s 80P on this amount. There was no justification for the Assessing Authority to disallow the claim in the intimation

CHIRAKKAL UPABOKTHRU SAHAKARNA SANGAM LTD NO. C1480,KANNUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC , KANNUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 to 2015-2016 are allowed

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

13,8601-, which as the name implies is a society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. After such formation, the society had obtained a license from Reserve Bank of India to carryon banking business. Exemption was claimed u/s 80P on this amount. There was no justification for the Assessing Authority to disallow the claim in the intimation

CHIRAKKAL UPABOKTHRU SAHAKARNA SANGAM LTD NO. C1480,KANNUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANNUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 to 2015-2016 are allowed

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

13,8601-, which as the name implies is a society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. After such formation, the society had obtained a license from Reserve Bank of India to carryon banking business. Exemption was claimed u/s 80P on this amount. There was no justification for the Assessing Authority to disallow the claim in the intimation

CLINT MARTEL WILFRED,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL CIT (A) BENGALURU - 12, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Clint Martel Wilfred Dcit (Interational Taxation) Clint Dale, Moolankuzhy Kochi Vs. Nazreth, Ernakulam 682002 [Pan: Abnpw6970H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

2) For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of sub-section(1),- (a) any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed