M/S.KADUNA HOSPITALITY P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS 3,009,047 20,333,836 31-03-2014 Total 32,625,989 32,625,989 Copy of the Bank Statement and Form 26AS are enclosed as Annexure A and B. 5. Section

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

TDS only on a sum of Rs. 1,32,42,920/- and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source treating it as mere reimbursement of expenditure to MPCMS. The said payee, i.e. MPCMS also raised different bills. The AO was of the opinion that the money paid towards management consultancy charges under composite contract and the contract

M/S AC CARGO MANAGEMENT P.LTD,,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri George George. K.] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 320/Coch/2013. िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008. Vs. M/S. Ac Cargo Management The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd, Ward 1(1) 1St Floor, Chacko Chambers, Kochi Civil Lines Road, Palarivattom, Kochi 682 025. [Pan Aaeca 2206K] (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" (ू"यथ" ू"यथ" ू"यथ"/Respondent) ू"यथ"

TDS has to be made under section 194 C or 194 I. In the case of ACIT vs. Accenture Services (P) Ltd. 44 SOT 290 (Mum) (wherein one of us, the J.M. is a party) the issue wasconsidered in detail as under: - “7. We have considered the rival contentions and relevant record. The short controversy in this case is regarding

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS "JRG SECURITIES LTD"),KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS only on a sum of Rs. 1,32,42,920/- and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source treating it as mere reimbursement of expenditure to MPCMS. The said payee, i.e. MPCMS also raised different bills. The AO was of the opinion that the money paid towards management consultancy charges under composite contract and the contract

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS only on a sum of Rs. 1,32,42,920/- and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source treating it as mere reimbursement of expenditure to MPCMS. The said payee, i.e. MPCMS also raised different bills. The AO was of the opinion that the money paid towards management consultancy charges under composite contract and the contract

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

TDS only on a sum of Rs. 1,32,42,920/- and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source treating it as mere reimbursement of expenditure to MPCMS. The said payee, i.e. MPCMS also raised different bills. The AO was of the opinion that the money paid towards management consultancy charges under composite contract and the contract

MR.THOMAS DANIEL,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.68/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

TDS u/s 194A. The Ld. AR submitted that Section I94A does not apply to individuals unless he is a person liable to tax audit u/s 44AB of the I.T. Act 1961 and in this case, the assessee, being an individual is not within the purview of the said section. Therefore, it was submitted that the department will have to I.T.A

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, ground Nos

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

section 2 33,32,307 36(1)(va) of the Act on late ITA No.489/Coch/2016 & SA 60/Coch/2017. 4 M/s.Allianz Cornhill International Services Pvt.Ltd. payment of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI 3. Erroneous imputation of 4 interest on amounts which are not in the nature of loan 4. Erroneous granting of credit 5 period which is short

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

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

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

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

THE ITO (TDS), KOTTAYAM vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM

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

TDS provisions by relying on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Ram Kanwar Rana in ITA No.1307/Del/2016 dated 16/06/2016 wherein it was held as under: 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The controversy in this appeal can be viewed separately in respect of receipt of gratuity amount

THE ITO (TDS), KOTTAYAM vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM

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

TDS provisions by relying on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Ram Kanwar Rana in ITA No.1307/Del/2016 dated 16/06/2016 wherein it was held as under: 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The controversy in this appeal can be viewed separately in respect of receipt of gratuity amount

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT,TDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

32,877 26A furnished, Return of 623,288/- FUND income not filed claiming that the deductee's income is exempted. Non-deduction of tax not acceptable as IDFC Cash Fund does not come under the institutions whose income is unconditionally exempt under Section 10 as per CBDT's Circular 3 The South Indian Bank Ltd. No.4/2002 in F.No.153/127/2002-TPL dated