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

section 40(a)(ia) no TDS is required to be made. 9. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR submits

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

section 40(a)(ia) no TDS is required to be made. 9. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR submits

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 as per the provisions contained in section 40 (a)(i) with Section 195 of the Act being the payment

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 under the provisions of section 194A r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the Act amounting

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F

section 40(a) (iib) of the Act any amount, as indicated, which is levied exclusively on the State owned undertaking (KSBC in the instant case), cannot be claimed as a deduction in the books of State owned undertaking, thus same is liable to income tax. Therefore, this Grounds of Appeal No.2 stands dismissed. 10. The Grounds of Appeal No.3 challenges

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR vs. KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavban, Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 Vs. Kannur Building Materials Co-Op. Society Ltd .......... Respondent No. C 1741, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur 670561 [Pan: Aaaak7151K]

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS under section 194C, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was done on the ground that the assessee had not collected TDS for the amount

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was done on the ground that the assessee had not collected TDS for the amount

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was done on the ground that the assessee had not collected TDS for the amount

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

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

TDS is only a technical violation u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act and nothing to indicate Page 10 of 14 that there is concealment of income resulting in underreporting of income and the legal fiction created u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be extended to the levy of penalty. c. The statutory auditor in their audit report dated

MM IMPORT AND EXPORT,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mm Import & Export .......... Appellant 709E, Avoly Panchayat, Adooparambu Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam 686661 [Pan: Aaofm2699B] Vs. Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, Thodupuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida [Cit(A)] Dated 31.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Export & Import Of Timber. The Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Was Filed On 30.09.2013 Declaring Nil Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward-1, Thodupuzha (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 12.12.2016 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) After Making Addition Of Rs. 4,19,849/-

TDS provisions invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO also made addition of Rs. 35,46,000/- which

MOHAMMED TARIQ THAIMADATHIL,KOCHI vs. THE ITO , NON CORP WARD 1(5), KOCHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Mohammed Tariq Thaimadathil, Vs. Ito, Tariq Manzil, Elmkunnapuzha Road, Non Corporate Ward – 1(5), Kaloor, Kochi. Cochin – 682 107. Pan : Abrpt 7993 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior Ar. Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav:

TDS @ 10%. Therefore, invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia), the AO disallowed a sum of Rs.3,54,075/-. Similarly

K. THOMAS VARGHESE,PIRAVAM vs. THE ACIT, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahushri K. Thomas Varghese Acit, Circle - 1 Manakunnathu Aluva Vs. Piravom 686664 Pan – Aaspv5029L Appellant Respondent

TDS under section 194A and not an item disallowable U/S 40(a)(i) of the Act. The appellant was denied

M DASANCIEIT,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

40(a)(ia) for domestic recipients, a capital expenditure item does not get covered under section TDS deduction(s). That

MDASAN CIEIT,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

40(a)(ia) for domestic recipients, a capital expenditure item does not get covered under section TDS deduction(s). That

M DASAN CIEIT,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

40(a)(ia) for domestic recipients, a capital expenditure item does not get covered under section TDS deduction(s). That

M DASAN CIEIT,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

40(a)(ia) for domestic recipients, a capital expenditure item does not get covered under section TDS deduction(s). That

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

40(a)(ia) for domestic recipients, a capital expenditure item does not get covered under section TDS deduction(s). That