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

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)

17. In our view, the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have rightly held that the assesses is entitled to the credit of the TDS mentioned in the TDS certificates issued by the contractor, whether the said certificate is issued in the name of the Joint Venture or in the name of a Director of the assessee company They have considered

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

17,31,298/- were remitted 'much before the due date of filing of return of income and this fact was not disputed. i) The appellant submits that since the remittance of PF was made before the due date of filing of return of income, it should not be treated as income of the assessee u/s.2

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

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) of section 115-O (coming under Chapter XII-D) or covered by the “second proviso” to section 194B (coming under Chapter XVII-B) alone would constitute an instance where penalty can be imposed in 6 ITA No.96/Coch/2015. M/s.Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Limited. terms of section 271C(1)(b) of the Act. Since there is no obscurity in the above

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

2,86,39,000/-. It is submitted that the appellant company made provisions for various expenditures. Since the payee was not identifiable, TDS was not made on such payment and, therefore, in the immediately next year the provision was reversed and deduction was claimed on the basis of actual expenditure. Reliance in this regard were placed on the following decisions

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 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

section 3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (11 of 1964).’ (emphasis, ours) Whether the said provision, inapplicable in the instant case inasmuch as the notices of demand stand issued much prior to 01/10/2014, would save the same is to be seen. The Hon’ble Court was, however, unanimous in that a set aside

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

section 3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (11 of 1964).’ (emphasis, ours) Whether the said provision, inapplicable in the instant case inasmuch as the notices of demand stand issued much prior to 01/10/2014, would save the same is to be seen. The Hon’ble Court was, however, unanimous in that a set aside

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

section 3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (11 of 1964).’ (emphasis, ours) Whether the said provision, inapplicable in the instant case inasmuch as the notices of demand stand issued much prior to 01/10/2014, would save the same is to be seen. The Hon’ble Court was, however, unanimous in that a set aside

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

section 3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (11 of 1964).’ (emphasis, ours) Whether the said provision, inapplicable in the instant case inasmuch as the notices of demand stand issued much prior to 01/10/2014, would save the same is to be seen. The Hon’ble Court was, however, unanimous in that a set aside

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)

17-09-2018 in similar issue. Appellant could not file the copy of the Tribunal’s judgments before the first appellate authority. The said judgment is applicable and binding on appellant. (5) Appellant would be put to much hardship and damages if the fee charged is not cancelled.” 3. Brief facts as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) for both

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)

17-09-2018 in similar issue. Appellant could not file the copy of the Tribunal’s judgments before the first appellate authority. The said judgment is applicable and binding on appellant. (5) Appellant would be put to much hardship and damages if the fee charged is not cancelled.” 3. Brief facts as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) for both

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

2) of the Act which are no more appealable u/s. 246A as well as 253 of the Act before the CIT(A) as well as this tribunal respectively. These six appeals stand rejected therefore as not maintainable.Sois the outcome of the corresponding stay applications SA Nos. 17, 20, 21, 23, 25 & 27/Coch/2022. 4. The legal position would hardly

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

2) of the Act which are no more appealable u/s. 246A as well as 253 of the Act before the CIT(A) as well as this tribunal respectively. These six appeals stand rejected therefore as not maintainable.Sois the outcome of the corresponding stay applications SA Nos. 17, 20, 21, 23, 25 & 27/Coch/2022. 4. The legal position would hardly

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

2) of the Act which are no more appealable u/s. 246A as well as 253 of the Act before the CIT(A) as well as this tribunal respectively. These six appeals stand rejected therefore as not maintainable.Sois the outcome of the corresponding stay applications SA Nos. 17, 20, 21, 23, 25 & 27/Coch/2022. 4. The legal position would hardly

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

2) of the Act which are no more appealable u/s. 246A as well as 253 of the Act before the CIT(A) as well as this tribunal respectively. These six appeals stand rejected therefore as not maintainable.Sois the outcome of the corresponding stay applications SA Nos. 17, 20, 21, 23, 25 & 27/Coch/2022. 4. The legal position would hardly

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

2) of the Act which are no more appealable u/s. 246A as well as 253 of the Act before the CIT(A) as well as this tribunal respectively. These six appeals stand rejected therefore as not maintainable.Sois the outcome of the corresponding stay applications SA Nos. 17, 20, 21, 23, 25 & 27/Coch/2022. 4. The legal position would hardly

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

2) of the Act which are no more appealable u/s. 246A as well as 253 of the Act before the CIT(A) as well as this tribunal respectively. These six appeals stand rejected therefore as not maintainable.Sois the outcome of the corresponding stay applications SA Nos. 17, 20, 21, 23, 25 & 27/Coch/2022. 4. The legal position would hardly