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

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. GROUND: Provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bonafide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 2.1. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are not attracted in the present case because non-deduction

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. GROUND: Provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bonafide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 2.1. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are not attracted in the present case because non-deduction

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. GROUND: Provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bonafide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 2.1. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are not attracted in the present case because non-deduction

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. GROUND: Provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bonafide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 2.1. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are not attracted in the present case because non-deduction

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. GROUND: Provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bonafide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 2.1. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are not attracted in the present case because non-deduction

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2. GROUND: Provisions of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bonafide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 2.1. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are not attracted in the present case because non-deduction

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

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

7 occasions available under sub- clause (2) to attract the underreporting of income. Similarly, in order to attract the penalty under sub-clause (8) of 270A of the Act, the provision mandates that there should be an underreported income in consequence of any misreporting thereof. Therefore because of the misreporting of any income there should be an underreported income

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees’ case also. The further argument

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees’ case also. The further argument

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees’ case also. The further argument

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees’ case also. The further argument

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees’ case also. The further argument

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees’ case also. The further argument

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees’ case also. The further argument

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees’ case also. The further argument

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SRI.JOSE THOMAS, ADOOR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees’ case also. The further argument

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees’ case also. The further argument