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

14 Kareeppa Panchayat Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. \ 15.5. Further, Section 2(d) of NABARD Act, 1981 defines central cooperative bank while Section 2(u) defines a state co- operative bank to mean the principal co-operative society in a State, the primary object of which is financing of other co- operative societies in the State which 59 means

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

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

GULF ASIA CONTRACTING CO. PVT. LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 1 (1), KOLLAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gulf Asia Contracting Company Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Xxv/812 Srivaldsam, Thevally P.O. Kollam 691009 [Pan: Aaecg1332Q] Vs. Acit, Circle - 1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bavan, Karbala Jn. Kollam 690001 Appellant By: Shri Rajeev, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.02.2025

TDS credit cannot be more than the claim made in the return of income. This reasoning of the CIT(A) runs counter to the provisions of sub-section (14) of section 155 of the Act and also section 219 of the Act. Therefore, in our considered opinion the interest of justice would be met if the matter is restored

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

14,06,31,409/- u/s 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS 5.1 The Ld. AO has erred in considering reimbursement of Rs 12,68,42,880/- towards Salary and other R&D expenses within the scope of "Fee for technical Services under explanation 2 of section

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

M/S. POYANIL HOSPITAL,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE ITO, TDS, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2013-14 M/S.Poyanil Hospital, Ito, Vs. Poyanil, Tds, Kozhencherry. Alappuzha. Pan :Aacfm 7322 F Assessee Respondent

14. 2. The solitary issue raised in all these appeals is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer’s order u/s 200A of the I.T. Act, wherein he levied late fees u/s 234E of the I.T. Act for various quarters. The assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee in the 3rd 3. quarter for the Financial

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,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

MOHAMED MUSTHAFA KUNNATH CHENGAANA,CALICUT vs. ITO,WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

TDS and the appellant’s share of 1/9th of Rs.47,46,504 was brought to tax as business profit of the appellant, by the AO. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), contending that the rural agricultural land does not come under the purview of “Capital Asset” as defined under the provisions

M/S ST. ALPHONSA TIMBERS & TRADERS (PVT) LTD,MARADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

2) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section

M/S ST. ALPHONSA TIMBERS AND TRADERS (PVT) LTD,MARADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

2) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section

ANUMOD VISHWAMBHARAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO TDS WARD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 78/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 79/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Anumod Viswambharan बनाम/ Ito Tc 8/2164, Cheruvikal, Tds Ward, Aayakar Vs. Medical College, Bhavan, Peroorkada Thiruvananthapuram- Road, Kowdiar, 695011. Thiruvananthapuram. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adjpv0729M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023

2) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section

ANUMOD VISHWAMBHARAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO TDS WARD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 78/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 79/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Anumod Viswambharan बनाम/ Ito Tc 8/2164, Cheruvikal, Tds Ward, Aayakar Vs. Medical College, Bhavan, Peroorkada Thiruvananthapuram- Road, Kowdiar, 695011. Thiruvananthapuram. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adjpv0729M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023

2) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section