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

b) read with Section 56 of the BR Act, 1949. In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside. Consequently, we hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. The questions

M/S.KADUNA HOSPITALITY P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

2,535,526 31-03-2009 09-02-2013 Bank 9,7,56,627 9,7,56,627 31-03-2013 07-06-2013 Bank 752,298 19-06-2013 Bank 16,572,491 09-06-2013 TDS 3,009,047 20,3,33,836 31-03-2014 Total 32,625,989 32,625,989 8.5 Section 45(5)(b

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

THE ITO, WARD-2(1), TVM, TVM vs. SMT.G.S.LEKHA, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed and the Cross

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.194/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13

TDS) (187 Taxman 1). Thus, he brought to tax a sum of Rs.1,65,31,119/- as long term capital gain. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that section 10 of the Act provides for income which cannot be included in the total income. Section 10(37) of the Act provides for exclusion from total income, capital gains arising

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

2. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bona fide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 3. Interest computation u/s 201(1A) for short deduction of TDS on salary is erroneous. 4. Interest computation

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

2. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bona fide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 3. Interest computation u/s 201(1A) for short deduction of TDS on salary is erroneous. 4. Interest computation

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

2. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bona fide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 3. Interest computation u/s 201(1A) for short deduction of TDS on salary is erroneous. 4. Interest computation

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

2. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bona fide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 3. Interest computation u/s 201(1A) for short deduction of TDS on salary is erroneous. 4. Interest computation

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

2. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bona fide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 3. Interest computation u/s 201(1A) for short deduction of TDS on salary is erroneous. 4. Interest computation

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

2. Provisions of section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not attracted for short deduction of TDS on salary because the appellant had deducted the TDS on a bona fide estimate of the tax liability of the employees. 3. Interest computation u/s 201(1A) for short deduction of TDS on salary is erroneous. 4. Interest computation

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 I94A does not apply

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

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

5) The amount referred to in sub-section (4) shall be deemed to be amount of income under-reported for the preceding year in the following order— Page 7 of 14 (a) the preceding year immediately before the year in which the receipt, deposit or investment appears, being the first preceding year; and (b) where the amount added or deducted

SHRI SURESH GEORGE,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ADIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3, THIRUVANATHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysuresh George Asstt. Director Of Income Tax Kurichyiel House International Taxation Payippad, Harippad Vs. Thiruvananthapuram Alappuzha 690 556 [Pan:Affpg5853B]

section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act would not apply inasmuch as the remuneration received, despite being subject to TDS u/s. 194J of the Act, is not a fee for technical services, but salary, tax deduction at source on which – over which he though has no control,hadto be, if at all, u/s. 192 of the Act. We find

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

b) to Explanation III to section 194C specifically covers activity of production of programmes whereas provisions of section 194J are general in nature - Provisions of section 194C would prevail over section 194J of Act - Section 194C clearly states that payment for production of programmes constitutes payments for 'work' under section 194C - Assessee rightly deducted TDS u/s 194C at rate

M/S.VIJAYA HOSPITALITY AND RESORTS LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADCIT(TDS), COCHIN

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

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

section 271C(1)(b) (failure to remit the tax deducted at source), despite the fact that it may be a more serious default, than the failure to deduct the tax at source.” 9.4 In the instant case, the major part of the TDS relates to remuneration to the Directors credited to the unsecured loan account. However, the TDS was payable

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

2,40,34,444 1,90,76,299 2008-09 2,99,17,018 2,59,85,137 2009-10 2,64,46,323 1,39,37,615 ' As per Original Returns filed Income as per Income & Amount claimed as u/s 239 Expenditure Statement utilized for charitable purposes 2003-04 2,41,97,800 2

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

2,40,34,444 1,90,76,299 2008-09 2,99,17,018 2,59,85,137 2009-10 2,64,46,323 1,39,37,615 ' As per Original Returns filed Income as per Income & Amount claimed as u/s 239 Expenditure Statement utilized for charitable purposes 2003-04 2,41,97,800 2

THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SMT.GRACY BABU, ADOOR P.O.

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

2,40,34,444 1,90,76,299 2008-09 2,99,17,018 2,59,85,137 2009-10 2,64,46,323 1,39,37,615 ' As per Original Returns filed Income as per Income & Amount claimed as u/s 239 Expenditure Statement utilized for charitable purposes 2003-04 2,41,97,800 2

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SRI.JOSE THOMAS, ADOOR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

2,40,34,444 1,90,76,299 2008-09 2,99,17,018 2,59,85,137 2009-10 2,64,46,323 1,39,37,615 ' As per Original Returns filed Income as per Income & Amount claimed as u/s 239 Expenditure Statement utilized for charitable purposes 2003-04 2,41,97,800 2