DCIT, KANNUR vs. M/S MANJOO & CO.,, KANNUR

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2006-07

TDS". Therefore, the difference came to Rs.6,70,59,121/- (Rs. 6,78,90,336/- -Rs. 8,31,215/-). The assessee had not furnished any detailed clarification on prizes won on small prizes. The assessee had also not produced any documentary evidences that the small prizes are collected on behalf of sold out tickets surrendered by others. Considering all these

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

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

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)

31, 2012 held as follows: - "The second aspect relates to credit of TDS by the taxpayers even when tax is not been credited or paid to the government We do not think that it will be appropriate to address this question in a PIL. We have entertained this PIL not to decide individual claims but in view of the general

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

TDS with the Government. 27. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the Section, is required to be read into the Section to give the Section a reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation

QATAR AIRWAYS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

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

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

31,385/- for assessment year 2008-09 quarter 4. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the said demand had arisen purely on account of data entry error of not mentioning lower rate reference of TDS as prescribed under section

QATAR AIRWAYS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

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

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

31,385/- for assessment year 2008-09 quarter 4. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the said demand had arisen purely on account of data entry error of not mentioning lower rate reference of TDS as prescribed under section

QATAR AIRWAYS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

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

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

31,385/- for assessment year 2008-09 quarter 4. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the said demand had arisen purely on account of data entry error of not mentioning lower rate reference of TDS as prescribed under section

QATAR AIRWAYS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

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

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

31,385/- for assessment year 2008-09 quarter 4. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the said demand had arisen purely on account of data entry error of not mentioning lower rate reference of TDS as prescribed under section

QATAR AIRWAYS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

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

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

31,385/- for assessment year 2008-09 quarter 4. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the said demand had arisen purely on account of data entry error of not mentioning lower rate reference of TDS as prescribed under section

QATAR AIRWAYS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

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

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

31,385/- for assessment year 2008-09 quarter 4. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the said demand had arisen purely on account of data entry error of not mentioning lower rate reference of TDS as prescribed under section

M/S ATHAZHAKUNNU MAPPILA L.P. SCHOOL,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD TDS, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shrisanjay Arora & Shriabyt.Varkey

section 200A(1) of the Act even as there was, prior to 01.6.2015, no provision for the said levy while processing a TDS return u/s. 200A(1) of the Act, which 1 ITA Nos. 911& 912/Coch/2022 (AY 2014-15) Athazhakunnu Mappilla L.P. School v. ITO came on the statute only by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. from that date. The issue

M/S ATHAZHAKUNNU MAPPILA L.P SCHOOL,KANNUR vs. ITO ,WARD TDS, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shrisanjay Arora & Shriabyt.Varkey

section 200A(1) of the Act even as there was, prior to 01.6.2015, no provision for the said levy while processing a TDS return u/s. 200A(1) of the Act, which 1 ITA Nos. 911& 912/Coch/2022 (AY 2014-15) Athazhakunnu Mappilla L.P. School v. ITO came on the statute only by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. from that date. The issue

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned