SRI.ABDUL KAREEM,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, ALUVA

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

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

TDS of Rs.88,29,502 as refund. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T.Act and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act was completed vide order dated 11.11.2016 on a total income of Rs.4,16,014. 4. Subsequently the CIT by invoking his revisionary powers issued notice

THOMAS JOHN MUTHOOT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 , THIRUVALLA, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Thomas John Muthoot Dcit, Circle - 1 Muthoot Centre, Punnen Road Thiruvalla Vs. Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Abnpt4694B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS if the recipient of such amount has offered the same as income in its return of income. Admittedly such amendment was effective from 01.04.2013 whereas the year before us relates to AY 2008-09. The 3 Thomas John Muthoot Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT reported in [2015] 63 taxmann.com

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)

section 199 of the IT Act, 1961 and 5 Shri Prem Mukundan Rule 37BA of the IT Rules, 1962 and proper mechanism is also provided under the Act and Rules. Thus, applying the ratio of the above judgement also, the assessee is entitled to get credit on TDS of Rs. 1,34

M DASANCIEIT,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section TDS deduction(s). That being the clinching factual and legal position, we accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground in all these five cases in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 4. These assessee’s appeals ITA.Nos.563 to 567/Coch./2023 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order

MDASAN CIEIT,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section TDS deduction(s). That being the clinching factual and legal position, we accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground in all these five cases in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 4. These assessee’s appeals ITA.Nos.563 to 567/Coch./2023 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order

M DASAN CIEIT,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section TDS deduction(s). That being the clinching factual and legal position, we accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground in all these five cases in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 4. These assessee’s appeals ITA.Nos.563 to 567/Coch./2023 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order

M DASAN CIEIT,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section TDS deduction(s). That being the clinching factual and legal position, we accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground in all these five cases in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 4. These assessee’s appeals ITA.Nos.563 to 567/Coch./2023 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order

M DASAN CIEIT,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO (TDS), KOZHIKKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section TDS deduction(s). That being the clinching factual and legal position, we accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground in all these five cases in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 4. These assessee’s appeals ITA.Nos.563 to 567/Coch./2023 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order

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 was duly deducted at the time of actual credit payment to individual parties 8. The AO grossly erred in making a disallowance of Rs.5,59,29,379/-towards Gas Turbine Overhauling charges u/s 31(i) of the Act. 8.1 The ld. Assessing Officer has erred in not considering the fact that repairs are done to preserve and maintain

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

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. On further appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. However, on further appeal before this Tribunal, the Tribunal vide order in ITA Nos. 61 & 62/Coch/2014 dated 27.06.2014 remanded the matter back to the file of AO for passing fresh assessment order in view of the order of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in assessee

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. On further appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. However, on further appeal before this Tribunal, the Tribunal vide order in ITA Nos. 61 & 62/Coch/2014 dated 27.06.2014 remanded the matter back to the file of AO for passing fresh assessment order in view of the order of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in assessee

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. On further appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. However, on further appeal before this Tribunal, the Tribunal vide order in ITA Nos. 61 & 62/Coch/2014 dated 27.06.2014 remanded the matter back to the file of AO for passing fresh assessment order in view of the order of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in assessee

NELLIPARAMBIL GOPALAN GANGADEVI,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO WARD 1, ALUVA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 10(10C) compliant: “10. INCOME TAX-TDS As the proposed scheme does not comply with Rule 10(10C) of Income Tax Act 1961 and no benefit of exemption of ex-gratia from income tax is intended in this scheme, there is no legal requirement for obtaining prior approval of Income Tax Department. 12. GENERAL CONDITIONS (i) …. (vii) viii

KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kerala Shipping & Inalnd Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Navigtation Corporation C.R. Building, I.S. Pres Road 38/924-A, Udaya Nagar Road Kochi 682018 Vs. Gandhi Nagar Kochi 682020 [Pan: Aabck4818L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS claimed in the year under consideration when same reflected in form 26AS. Therefore, in our considered view there is no prejudice caused to the revenue by this. Thus, the condition precedent for invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act fails on the issue on hand. 16. Likewise, we note the AO in the body of assessment shown

PALMSHORE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

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

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed for AY 2017-18. However, the AO, on 2 Palmshore Hotels Pvt. Ltd. receipt of information that the appellant had a turnover from services reported in Service Tax Return of Rs. 34,17,888/-, interest income and rental income on which TDS

M/S CEECON READYMIX CONCRETE PVT LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO TDS RANGE, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the afore-said terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

TDS, which is only on the filing the correct Form, and which is what in fact led the assessee to file the same. Further, this is precisely what the law, by subjecting it to a cost in the form of a fee, seeks to discourage and, per contra, promote filing of proper returns in time. The same is neither interest

M/S CEECON READYMIX CONCRETE PVT LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO TDS RANGE, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the afore-said terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

TDS, which is only on the filing the correct Form, and which is what in fact led the assessee to file the same. Further, this is precisely what the law, by subjecting it to a cost in the form of a fee, seeks to discourage and, per contra, promote filing of proper returns in time. The same is neither interest