MARIAMMA JOSEPH,KOTTAYAMN vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is decided on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasmariamma Joseph Asst. Cit, Central Circle Hotel Floral Park Kottayam 686001 Gandhinagar Vs. Kottayam 686008 [Pan:Accpj9135F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS, Adv. Tax or self-assessment tax is deemed to be given.’ The same stood confirmed in first appeal; the ld. CIT(A) holding as: ‘In the present case, assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was passed for the A.Y 2010-11 on 28.3.2013. The appellate order was passed on 16.2.2016. The order of the Assessing Officer merged with

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

section 139”. The assessee also submitted that though the amendment made effective from 01.04.2010 it is retrospectively applicable as it is curative in nature. The CIT(A) did not agree with the contention of the assessee and accordingly upheld the disallowance by relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thomas George Muthoot

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

35,577/- invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO rejected the contention of the appellant that in the assessment year 2008-09, in the assessment made pursuant to the order of remand made by the Hon'ble High Court, no addition was made by the AO on the same payment. The appellant

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

35,577/- invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO rejected the contention of the appellant that in the assessment year 2008-09, in the assessment made pursuant to the order of remand made by the Hon'ble High Court, no addition was made by the AO on the same payment. The appellant

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

35,577/- invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO rejected the contention of the appellant that in the assessment year 2008-09, in the assessment made pursuant to the order of remand made by the Hon'ble High Court, no addition was made by the AO on the same payment. The appellant

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

35, 4th Floor,\nGCDA Commercial\nComplex,\nMarine Drive,\nCochin,\nKerala - 682 031.\nPAN: AAACC9658B\nAPPELLANT\nAssessee by\n:\nShri Gopi K, СА\nRevenue by\n:\nShri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR\nDate of Hearing\n:\n02-07-2025\nDate of Pronouncement\n:\n23-09-2025\nORDER\nPER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER\nThese are the appeals filed by the assessee challenging the separate

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

35, 4th Floor,\nGCDA Commercial\nComplex,\nMarine Drive,\nCochin,\nKerala - 682 031.\nPAN: AAACC9658B\nAPPELLANT\nThe Deputy\nCommissioner of\nIncome Tax,\nCorporate Circle\n1(1),\nCochin\nVs.\nRESPONDENT\nAssessee by : Shri Gopi K, CA\nRevenue by : Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR\nDate of Hearing : 02-07-2025\nDate of Pronouncement : 23-09-2025\nORDER\nPER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER\nThese

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

DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

1. Staff employed by assessee are on deputation basis from various sections of Education Department of Kerala government. Their service with the assessee ends after 5 years or whenever they are called back from their respective section of the department. Remaining employees working with the assessee are on contract basis and their appointment may or may not be renewed

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

35, 4th Floor, Commissioner of GCDA Commercial Income Tax, Complex, Corporate Circle Marine Drive, 1(1), Cochin, Vs. Cochin Kerala – 682 031. PAN: AAACC9658B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Gopi K, CA Revenue by : Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR Date of Hearing : 02-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23-09-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER These are the appeals

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

35, 4th Floor, Commissioner of GCDA Commercial Income Tax, Complex, Corporate Circle Marine Drive, 1(1), Cochin, Vs. Cochin Kerala – 682 031. PAN: AAACC9658B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Gopi K, CA Revenue by : Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR Date of Hearing : 02-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23-09-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER These are the appeals

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

35, 4th Floor, Commissioner of GCDA Commercial Income Tax, Complex, Corporate Circle Marine Drive, 1(1), Cochin, Vs. Cochin Kerala – 682 031. PAN: AAACC9658B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Gopi K, CA Revenue by : Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR Date of Hearing : 02-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23-09-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER These are the appeals

ABC BUILDWARE INDIA (P) LIMITED,PARIYARAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

35,110/- ABC Sales Rs. 6,34,89,041/- Rs. 4,63,48,467/- Rs. 1,71,40,574/- Taliparamba Rs. 9,22,75,684/- Total Difference . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 53 of 165 50.1 In view of the above differences between the actual stock and the stock recorded in the books of account, the Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

35,110/- ABC Sales Rs. 6,34,89,041/- Rs. 4,63,48,467/- Rs. 1,71,40,574/- Taliparamba Rs. 9,22,75,684/- Total Difference . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 53 of 165 50.1 In view of the above differences between the actual stock and the stock recorded in the books of account, the Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that

KODIYIL MUHAMMED MADANI, PARTNER (ABC SALES CORPORATION),TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

35,110/- ABC Sales Rs. 6,34,89,041/- Rs. 4,63,48,467/- Rs. 1,71,40,574/- Taliparamba Rs. 9,22,75,684/- Total Difference . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 53 of 165 50.1 In view of the above differences between the actual stock and the stock recorded in the books of account, the Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

35,110/- ABC Sales Rs. 6,34,89,041/- Rs. 4,63,48,467/- Rs. 1,71,40,574/- Taliparamba Rs. 9,22,75,684/- Total Difference . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 53 of 165 50.1 In view of the above differences between the actual stock and the stock recorded in the books of account, the Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that

ABC BUILDWARE INDIA (P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

35,110/- ABC Sales Rs. 6,34,89,041/- Rs. 4,63,48,467/- Rs. 1,71,40,574/- Taliparamba Rs. 9,22,75,684/- Total Difference . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 53 of 165 50.1 In view of the above differences between the actual stock and the stock recorded in the books of account, the Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that

ABDUL GAFOOR MUHAMMED POTTICHI,TAQLIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

35,110/- ABC Sales Rs. 6,34,89,041/- Rs. 4,63,48,467/- Rs. 1,71,40,574/- Taliparamba Rs. 9,22,75,684/- Total Difference . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 53 of 165 50.1 In view of the above differences between the actual stock and the stock recorded in the books of account, the Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that