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

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

37,207/-. The assessee further submitted that further details of declaration filed in form 15G/15H and the name of the depositors and the full details could not be collected in order to give explanations to the proposal because of the technical error in the system. 3. In respect of the deduction claimed for the provision made

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PR CIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Asianet Satellite Vs. Pcit, Communications Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. 2A, 2Nd Floor, Carnival Technopark, Technopark, Kazhakuttom, Karyavattom, P. O., Thiruvananthapuram. Pan : Aaeca 5548 E Appellant Respondent

TDS as deductible expenses under section 37(1) of the Act, considering the payment to be compensatory in nature. Ground

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)

1)." 2.7 The essence of the above stated provisions and corresponding rules is that the tax deducted at source (TDS) is nothing but tax, and credit for TDS should go to the person in whose hands the income is rightfully and finally assessed to tax in accordance with law irrespective of the person in whose hands the TDS has been

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

1) of the I. T Act, 1961.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his original return of income on 25.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs.4,12,82,340/- and a net agricultural income of Rs.9,24,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny for the following reasons: - (i) Large agricultural

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)

1 to 5: The core issue for determination is whether the payments made by the appellant hospital to the doctors engaged by it are in the nature of 'salary' taxable under Section 15 of the Act, requiring TDS under Section 192, or 'professional fees' taxable under Section 28, requiring TDS under Section 194J. The determination hinges on whether an employer

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)

1,64,36,212/- and interest on the same for Rs. 79,11,298/- only. The amount of additional compensation as well as the amount of interest was claimed as exempted income under section 10(37) of the Act. The assessee contended that interest received was in accordance with section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of 1894which is part

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

KEERAN MUHAMMED BASHEER,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, ALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

KEERAN MUHAMMED BASHEER,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

KEERAN MUHAMMED BASHEER,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

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

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

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

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

KEERAN MUHAMMED BASHEER,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming