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

37 of the Income Tax Act, in any case. The addition made by the AO leads to addition to the taxable income of the appellant of the entire amount. 5. The learned AO has erred in disallowing the claim of Rs 14,06,31,409/- u/s 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS 5.1 The Ld. AO has erred

GEORGE KOCHUPARAMBIL, PROP. UNITED GRANITES & METALS,THODUPUZHA vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Juduicial Member & Ms. Padmavathy Sshri George Kochuparambil Kochuparambil House Dcit/Acit, Central Vazhithala P.O. Vs. Circle Thodupuzha Kochi Idukki 685583 Pan – Afjpk9650E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri M. Jarasekhar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2023

37 of the Act amounting to Rs.41,41,053/- in the original assessment proceedings. He submitted that initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act is uncalled for as all the necessary details were furnished by the assessee to the AO based on which the assessment order has been passed. He placed reliance on the decision

INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. MUTHOOT HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOZHENCHERRY

Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the same. Thus, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

TDS under Section 194J. The determination hinges on whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the appellant and the doctors. 3 Assessment Year 2018-2019 5.2 It is a well-established principle in income tax law that the nature of payment is determined by the substance of the relationship between the payer and the payee, rather than merely the nomenclature

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)

37) of the Actor chargeable to tax as income from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the Act. In this regard we note that the issue on hand is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai

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 154 of the Act ought to have been entertained by the Revenue. 10. In this regard, learned DR also made submission that the decision of the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, was in relation to provisions of Rule 37BA of the Rules which is applicable to TDS and not to TCS and it is only Rule 37

MOHAMED MUSTHAFA KUNNATH CHENGAANA,CALICUT vs. ITO,WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

37,161. The State Government, however, filed an appeal before the High Court against the judgment. However, the Land Acquisition Officer released 50% enhanced compensation after deducting TDS and the appellant’s share of 1/9th of Rs.47,46,504 was brought to tax as business profit of the appellant, by the AO. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order

TIME ADS & PUBLICITY,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

section s. 37(1), case law on which is legion. Purchase of goods being traded, for example, would be a direct cost of goods sold, deductible u/s. 37(1). The assessee, in fact, while canvassing so, contradicts itself inasmuch as tax on impugned sums has been deducted and deposited on 29.6.2009, which would entitle it to deduction in respect

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.TIME ADS & PUBLICITY, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

section s. 37(1), case law on which is legion. Purchase of goods being traded, for example, would be a direct cost of goods sold, deductible u/s. 37(1). The assessee, in fact, while canvassing so, contradicts itself inasmuch as tax on impugned sums has been deducted and deposited on 29.6.2009, which would entitle it to deduction in respect

M/S. NEDUMATTOM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,IDUKKI vs. THE ITO, THODUPIZHA

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

37,702 is interest income on investment with M/s.Idukki District Co-operative Bank Limited. According to the PCIT, as per section 80P(2)(d) of the I.T.Act, interest / dividend received from investment with co-operative societies alone would be entitled to deduction. Since the assessee had 4 ITA No.189/Coch/2021. M/s.Nedumattom SCB Limited. made investments with co-operative bank, which

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

TDS being deducted by the assessee. Respectfully following the Supreme Court decision, I hold that there was no liability for the appellant to deduct tax at source u/s 195( 1) and accordingly the addition of Rs. 55,78,022/- is deleted.” 5. From the above order of the CIT(A) we observed that he has done a good reasoned order

IFTHIKAR KARUPPAMVEETIL ABDUL RAHMAN,CHAVAKKAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

37. 4 ITA.No.119/COCH./2024 D. Without prejudice to the above submission it is respectfully submitted that, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, theassessment order framed under section 143(3) read with section 144C( 13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) passed by the Learned Assessing officer dated 21.12.2023 incorporating directions

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHELEMBRA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHENGOTTUKAVU BRANCH,KOYILANDY vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHELEMBRA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHENGOTTUKAVU BRANCH,KOYILANDY vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHOONDAL BRANCH,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHENGOTTUKAVU BRANCH,KOYILANDY vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHENGOTTUKAVU BRANCH,KOYILANDY vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, MANGALAPURAM BRANCH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea