MATHIIT LEARNING PRIVATE LIMITED,SASTHAMANGALAM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the ITA Nos

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

Section 234 E of the IT act 61 amounting to Rs. l,52,971 for delay in filing of TDS

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)

234 E(Quarter-4) is therefore illegal and liable to be cancelled. (4) The authority below ought have considered the judgment of the Hon’ Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA 145/Coch/2017 dated 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

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)

234 E(Quarter-4) is therefore illegal and liable to be cancelled. (4) The authority below ought have considered the judgment of the Hon’ Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA 145/Coch/2017 dated 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

DHUSAN MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANNUR, KERALA vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KANNUR, KERALA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

TDS return. It is next contended that levy of interest u/s 234E of the Act is not a mandatory in all cases. However, the ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of CPC. 4. Aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us. 5. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before

DHUSAN MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANNUR, KERALA vs. ITO, KANNUR, KERALA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

TDS return. It is next contended that levy of interest u/s 234E of the Act is not a mandatory in all cases. However, the ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of CPC. 4. Aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us. 5. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 234 A and 2348. The Hon. Tribunal vide its order in ITA No.916 to 919/Coch/2022 dated 2/05/2024 in the case of Santhimadom Ayurniketan Trust has remanded the issue back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration. Copy of the ITAT order is attached herewith.” In the above said written submission, the assessee is not pressing ground

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 234 A and 2348. The Hon. Tribunal vide its order in ITA No.916 to 919/Coch/2022 dated 2/05/2024 in the case of Santhimadom Ayurniketan Trust has remanded the issue back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration. Copy of the ITAT order is attached herewith.” In the above said written submission, the assessee is not pressing ground

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 234 A and 2348. The Hon. Tribunal vide its order in ITA No.916 to 919/Coch/2022 dated 2/05/2024 in the case of Santhimadom Ayurniketan Trust has remanded the issue back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration. Copy of the ITAT order is attached herewith.” In the above said written submission, the assessee is not pressing ground

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 234 A and 2348. The Hon. Tribunal vide its order in ITA No.916 to 919/Coch/2022 dated 2/05/2024 in the case of Santhimadom Ayurniketan Trust has remanded the issue back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration. Copy of the ITAT order is attached herewith.” In the above said written submission, the assessee is not pressing ground

M/S.POPULAR DEALERS,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

234 ITR 288). Section 201 has been amended with effect from 01.07.2012 whereby the burden of proving that the payee / deductee had paid the taxes is on the assessee / deductor. In other words, the assessee is to provide proof that payee / deductee has filed the return declaring the income on which the TDS

M/S.POPULAR DEALERS,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

234 ITR 288). Section 201 has been amended with effect from 01.07.2012 whereby the burden of proving that the payee / deductee had paid the taxes is on the assessee / deductor. In other words, the assessee is to provide proof that payee / deductee has filed the return declaring the income on which the TDS

THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR TRADERS, PATHANMTHITTA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

234 ITR 288). Section 201 has been amended with effect from 01.07.2012 whereby the burden of proving that the payee / deductee had paid the taxes is on the assessee / deductor. In other words, the assessee is to provide proof that payee / deductee has filed the return declaring the income on which the TDS

THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR TRADERS, PATHANMTHITTA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

234 ITR 288). Section 201 has been amended with effect from 01.07.2012 whereby the burden of proving that the payee / deductee had paid the taxes is on the assessee / deductor. In other words, the assessee is to provide proof that payee / deductee has filed the return declaring the income on which the TDS

M/S.POPULAR TRADERS,PATHANMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

234 ITR 288). Section 201 has been amended with effect from 01.07.2012 whereby the burden of proving that the payee / deductee had paid the taxes is on the assessee / deductor. In other words, the assessee is to provide proof that payee / deductee has filed the return declaring the income on which the TDS

THE ITO (TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR PRINTERS, PATHANAMTHITTA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

234 ITR 288). Section 201 has been amended with effect from 01.07.2012 whereby the burden of proving that the payee / deductee had paid the taxes is on the assessee / deductor. In other words, the assessee is to provide proof that payee / deductee has filed the return declaring the income on which the TDS

M/S.POPULAR PRINTERS,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO (TDS), ALAPPUZHA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

234 ITR 288). Section 201 has been amended with effect from 01.07.2012 whereby the burden of proving that the payee / deductee had paid the taxes is on the assessee / deductor. In other words, the assessee is to provide proof that payee / deductee has filed the return declaring the income on which the TDS

THE ITO (TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR PRINTERS, PATHANAMTHITTA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

234 ITR 288). Section 201 has been amended with effect from 01.07.2012 whereby the burden of proving that the payee / deductee had paid the taxes is on the assessee / deductor. In other words, the assessee is to provide proof that payee / deductee has filed the return declaring the income on which the TDS

THE ITO (TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR PRINTERS, PATHANAMTHITTA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

234 ITR 288). Section 201 has been amended with effect from 01.07.2012 whereby the burden of proving that the payee / deductee had paid the taxes is on the assessee / deductor. In other words, the assessee is to provide proof that payee / deductee has filed the return declaring the income on which the TDS