MR.THOMAS DANIEL,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.68/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

40a(ia) along with 2nd proviso and Section 201(1) along with proviso, it would mean that the mandate or requirement on the part of the payer to deduct tax at source is not so strict if they are able to show that the payee or the recipient of the amounts has paid tax in accordance with the provisions

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

TDS without considering the fact that the said payment is only incentives paid for mobilizing deposits from its members and not a commission payment.” 11. The first ground raised in the above appeal is with reference to grant of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. We have already considered the issue in ITA No.579/Coch

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

TDS without considering the fact that the said payment is only incentives paid for mobilizing deposits from its members and not a commission payment.” 11. The first ground raised in the above appeal is with reference to grant of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. We have already considered the issue in ITA No.579/Coch

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

TDS without considering the fact that the said payment is only incentives paid for mobilizing deposits from its members and not a commission payment.” 11. The first ground raised in the above appeal is with reference to grant of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. We have already considered the issue in ITA No.579/Coch

M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

40A(2)(b) reported in audit report and ITR - High Ratio of refund of TDS - Large other expenses claimed in the Profit and Loss Account. n) The Assessing officer after examining reasons for selecting the return for limited scrutiny based on the records and submissions made by the assessee accepted the return and completed the Limited scrutiny by order dated

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

TDS in terms of sec. 40a(ia) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 99- 100/C/ 2017 4. After hearing both the parties, we find that a similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in I.T.A. No. 222/Coch/2013 for the AY 2007-08. The Tribunal vide order dated 29/07/2017 held as under: “16. We have

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

TDS in terms of sec. 40a(ia) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 99- 100/C/ 2017 4. After hearing both the parties, we find that a similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in I.T.A. No. 222/Coch/2013 for the AY 2007-08. The Tribunal vide order dated 29/07/2017 held as under: “16. We have

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

TDS in terms of sec. 40a(ia) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 99- 100/C/ 2017 4. After hearing both the parties, we find that a similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in I.T.A. No. 222/Coch/2013 for the AY 2007-08. The Tribunal vide order dated 29/07/2017 held as under: “16. We have

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

TDS in terms of sec. 40a(ia) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 99- 100/C/ 2017 4. After hearing both the parties, we find that a similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in I.T.A. No. 222/Coch/2013 for the AY 2007-08. The Tribunal vide order dated 29/07/2017 held as under: “16. We have

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

TDS in terms of sec. 40a(ia) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 99- 100/C/ 2017 4. After hearing both the parties, we find that a similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in I.T.A. No. 222/Coch/2013 for the AY 2007-08. The Tribunal vide order dated 29/07/2017 held as under: “16. We have

INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

40A(ia) for disallowance of expenses where TDS was not deducted. The assessee denied the status of the society as a co-operative society and consequently, treating interest income of Rs.2,95,38,828/- as income from other sources, thereby denying deduction under Section 80P(2

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

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, ground Nos

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

40a(i)/(ia) also. AO is free to inform the concerned TDS authorities regarding non deduction of Tax at source by the assessee at the relevant time of making provision, so that appropriate action can be taken by such authorities for such default. Considering above, the objections of the assessee are not accepted.” 3.2 Aggrieved by the order

M/S.VIJAYA PALACE,,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

2) Shri Rajendra Yadav vs. ITO in ITA No.895/JP/2012 dated 29/01/2016 (ITAT Jaipur). I.T.A. No.506/Coch/2018 3) Smt. Sonu Khandelwal vs. ITO in ITA No.597/JP/2013 dated 13/05/2016 (ITAT, Jaipur) 4) CIT vs. Calcutta Export Company (93 taxmann.com 51) (SC) 5) Kolli Gopi Krishna vs. Dy. Director of Income-tax (Intl.Taxation) (83 taxmann.com 330) (Hyderabad-Trib.) 6) A. Daga Royal Arts

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

40A(3) would apply in computing the income under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” and “Income from other sources” as per section 58(2). All payments in excess of Rs.2,500 at one time whether for goods or services obtained for cash or 6 P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan vs. Asst. CIT credit, which are deductible

M/S.ST.GEORGE MOTORS,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-4, KOTTAYAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K

2. Disallowance u/s 40A(3) 92760 Cash payment 3. Audit fee 45000 TDS not deducted 4. Remuneration paid to 136937 Not working Mrs.Neethu partner 5. Remuneration paid to working 705754 40(b)(ii) & partner 40(b)(v) 4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition totaling

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee challenged the said disallowances before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the case of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal on the following grounds: ITA Nos.74 to 77/Coch/2024 Thanseer Kaja, Kerala Page

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee challenged the said disallowances before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the case of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal on the following grounds: ITA Nos.74 to 77/Coch/2024 Thanseer Kaja, Kerala Page