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

MUTHOOT HEALTHCARE P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE ACIT, , THIRUVALLA

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

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

32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, is not valid 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR reiterated the same submissions which were made before the CIT(A). 6. The Ld. DR submitted that this issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case

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

ii. Disallowance of additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the ground that the plant and machinery was acquired and put to use during the previous year relevant to AY 2012- 13. Since the assets were put to use for less than 180 days, additional depreciation was allowed only at 10% as per second proviso to section

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

1) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as a deducted in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid." 24. Thus, the Finance Act, 2010 further relaxed the rigors of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act to provide that all TDS made during the previous year can be deposited with

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

1) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as a deducted in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid." 24. Thus, the Finance Act, 2010 further relaxed the rigors of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act to provide that all TDS made during the previous year can be deposited with

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

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

ii) in any other case, the difference between the amount of income reassessed or recomputed and the amount of income assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order: Page 6 of 14 Provided that where under-reported income arises out of determination of deemed total income in accordance with the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC, the amount

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201(lA). Kindly see Annexure 2 & 3 of the assessment order. Uplink charges is as per Annexure 2 which is at pages 29 to 31 of the Paper Book and Backhaul charges are as per Annexure 3 which are at pages 32 to 34 of the Paper Book. (ii) As per para

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201(lA). Kindly see Annexure 2 & 3 of the assessment order. Uplink charges is as per Annexure 2 which is at pages 29 to 31 of the Paper Book and Backhaul charges are as per Annexure 3 which are at pages 32 to 34 of the Paper Book. (ii) As per para

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201(lA). Kindly see Annexure 2 & 3 of the assessment order. Uplink charges is as per Annexure 2 which is at pages 29 to 31 of the Paper Book and Backhaul charges are as per Annexure 3 which are at pages 32 to 34 of the Paper Book. (ii) As per para

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201(lA). Kindly see Annexure 2 & 3 of the assessment order. Uplink charges is as per Annexure 2 which is at pages 29 to 31 of the Paper Book and Backhaul charges are as per Annexure 3 which are at pages 32 to 34 of the Paper Book. (ii) As per para

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201(lA). Kindly see Annexure 2 & 3 of the assessment order. Uplink charges is as per Annexure 2 which is at pages 29 to 31 of the Paper Book and Backhaul charges are as per Annexure 3 which are at pages 32 to 34 of the Paper Book. (ii) As per para

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201(lA). Kindly see Annexure 2 & 3 of the assessment order. Uplink charges is as per Annexure 2 which is at pages 29 to 31 of the Paper Book and Backhaul charges are as per Annexure 3 which are at pages 32 to 34 of the Paper Book. (ii) As per para

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201(lA). Kindly see Annexure 2 & 3 of the assessment order. Uplink charges is as per Annexure 2 which is at pages 29 to 31 of the Paper Book and Backhaul charges are as per Annexure 3 which are at pages 32 to 34 of the Paper Book. (ii) As per para

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201(lA). Kindly see Annexure 2 & 3 of the assessment order. Uplink charges is as per Annexure 2 which is at pages 29 to 31 of the Paper Book and Backhaul charges are as per Annexure 3 which are at pages 32 to 34 of the Paper Book. (ii) As per para

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201(lA). Kindly see Annexure 2 & 3 of the assessment order. Uplink charges is as per Annexure 2 which is at pages 29 to 31 of the Paper Book and Backhaul charges are as per Annexure 3 which are at pages 32 to 34 of the Paper Book. (ii) As per para

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201(lA). Kindly see Annexure 2 & 3 of the assessment order. Uplink charges is as per Annexure 2 which is at pages 29 to 31 of the Paper Book and Backhaul charges are as per Annexure 3 which are at pages 32 to 34 of the Paper Book. (ii) As per para

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

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