THE KAREEPPA PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.D,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2017-18

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and permissible deduction of interest income is limited to Co-operative Societies/Banks registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act under clause (d) of the Act and effect order on the above lines is made by the Assessing Officer. The questions are accordingly answered.” 5. We adopt the above detailed discussion mutatis mutandis in the case

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

5. As per the ITO (TDS) contribution made by the employees towards Provident Fund was deposited with the District Co-operative Bank, which does not come within the above three categories of Provident Fund. Accordingly the benefit of deduction under Section

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

5. As per the ITO (TDS) contribution made by the employees towards Provident Fund was deposited with the District Co-operative Bank, which does not come within the above three categories of Provident Fund. Accordingly the benefit of deduction under Section

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

5. As per the ITO (TDS) contribution made by the employees towards Provident Fund was deposited with the District Co-operative Bank, which does not come within the above three categories of Provident Fund. Accordingly the benefit of deduction under Section

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

5. As per the ITO (TDS) contribution made by the employees towards Provident Fund was deposited with the District Co-operative Bank, which does not come within the above three categories of Provident Fund. Accordingly the benefit of deduction under Section

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

5. As per the ITO (TDS) contribution made by the employees towards Provident Fund was deposited with the District Co-operative Bank, which does not come within the above three categories of Provident Fund. Accordingly the benefit of deduction under Section

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

5. As per the ITO (TDS) contribution made by the employees towards Provident Fund was deposited with the District Co-operative Bank, which does not come within the above three categories of Provident Fund. Accordingly the benefit of deduction under Section

THE MANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,PALAKKAD vs. THE ITO WD-2, PALAKKAD

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

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

TDS), Thrissur. Mannur P.O. Palakkad – 678 642. PAN : AAALT1212B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sivadas Chittoor Respondent by : Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2019 Date of Hearing : 26.08.2019 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 02.01.2019. The relevant assessment year

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)

TDS reported in70 taxmann.com 45. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Bench is extracted as under: “10. In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that the interest on which the tax is sought to be deducted at source under section 194A of the Act is interest under section

M/S.TRAVEL TRAILS INDIA P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT,, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K

5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the' decision of the Pune Tribunal in the case of Maharashtra Cricket Association Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS, Ghaziabad, which clearly held that provisions of Section

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

5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the main issue is the disallowance of Rs 67, 30, 90,917/- u/s 40(a)(ia) being payment of interest on borrowed funds from firms in which appellant is a partner without TDS u/s 194A. The Ld. AR submitted that Section

ITO, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.SOUTHERN MINERAL INDUSTRIES,, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

Section applicable Amount paid without TDS. Financial year 05-06 (Rs.) Sieving charges 1. 194C 14,99,377 2. Drying charges 194C 14,97,696 3. Loading charges 914C 10,13,896 4. Transportation charges 194C 1,21,000 5

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)

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

M/S.MALAYALAM COMMUNICATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS to be made on payments to production houses and not to the individuals as in the case of assessee. Taking into account all the above, the CIT(A) was of the considered opinion that the provisions of section 194J alone are applicable to the assessee and thereby, the assessee ought to have deducted the tax at 10% instead

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

5 of the BR Act and hence, it is not a co-operative bank which is a primary agricultural credit society.” 5.5 In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in assessee’s own case (supra), we hold that the orders of the A.O. and CIT(A) in denying the benefit of deduction

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

5 of the BR Act and hence, it is not a co-operative bank which is a primary agricultural credit society.” 5.5 In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in assessee’s own case (supra), we hold that the orders of the A.O. and CIT(A) in denying the benefit of deduction

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

5 of the BR Act and hence, it is not a co-operative bank which is a primary agricultural credit society.” 5.5 In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in assessee’s own case (supra), we hold that the orders of the A.O. and CIT(A) in denying the benefit of deduction

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

TDS. The assessee had paid a sum of Rs.1,21,86,468 as commission to PCARDB. The commission was paid by the assessee to PCARDB for mobilizing deposits for the assessee. Since there was no tax deduction at source, the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, disallowed the commission payment to PCARDB