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

33,77,497/- the appellant had deducted 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

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

33,77,497/- the appellant had deducted 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

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

33,77,497/- the appellant had deducted 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

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

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS deducted and Page 5 of 7 the final tax demand as per the order under section 154 (page 33

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI. GEORGE MATHEW, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

TDS liability may arise if composite bills have been issued.” “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the assessing officer treating Agricultural Income as Business Income. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of 10% of expenses amounting

SRI. GEORGE MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

TDS liability may arise if composite bills have been issued.” “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the assessing officer treating Agricultural Income as Business Income. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of 10% of expenses amounting

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned fee stands pointed out by the assessee, and neither is there any reference thereto in the assessee

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned fee stands pointed out by the assessee, and neither is there any reference thereto in the assessee

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned fee stands pointed out by the assessee, and neither is there any reference thereto in the assessee

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned fee stands pointed out by the assessee, and neither is there any reference thereto in the assessee

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned fee stands pointed out by the assessee, and neither is there any reference thereto in the assessee

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned fee stands pointed out by the assessee, and neither is there any reference thereto in the assessee

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned fee stands pointed out by the assessee, and neither is there any reference thereto in the assessee

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned fee stands pointed out by the assessee, and neither is there any reference thereto in the assessee

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned fee stands pointed out by the assessee, and neither is there any reference thereto in the assessee

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned fee stands pointed out by the assessee, and neither is there any reference thereto in the assessee

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned fee stands pointed out by the assessee, and neither is there any reference thereto in the assessee

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

33, 35 & 36/Coch/22 fail therefore. 5. This leaves us with assessee’s six quantum appeals, ITA Nos. 461 to 466/Coch/2022 involving proceedings under Section 201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) ITA Nos. 443 to 466/Coch/2022 3 SANos. 17 to 38/Coch/2022 M/s. Noorul Islam Trust of the Act wherein the learned lower authorities have treated it as an assessee in default