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

50,02,98,250 15 Reimbursement of expenses 1,07,78,001 16 Recovery of expenses 3,69,14,146 3. On noticing the above international transactions, the AO referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. The TPO vide order dated

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 an opportunity to furnish certificate in Form No. 26A as provided in the Act & Rules. 9. The first appellate authority had also not considered the fact that the rental charges is an inevitable expenditure for the retail shop for consumer

MOHAMED MUSTHAFA KUNNATH CHENGAANA,CALICUT vs. ITO,WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

50% enhanced compensation after deducting TDS and the appellant’s share of 1/9th of Rs.47,46,504 was brought to tax as business profit of the appellant, by the AO. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), contending that the rural agricultural land does not come under the purview of “Capital Asset

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)

50% as per the provision of section 57(iv) of the Act made addition of Rs. 39,55,649/- to the total income of the assessee. 5. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The assessee before the learned CIT(A) made identical submission that the interest was received on enhanced compensation under section

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

50,939/- and demanded tax Rs. 8,97,240/- including interest. The AO while concluding the assessment brought to tax Rs. 25,935/- which the assessee had received as retirement benefit and also capital gain Rs. 27,710/- on sale of 1900 shares of Indian Company was not declared in the return of income. The assessee filed a rectification petition

SRI.THOMAS CHACKO PROPRIETOR OF GROUP MUKKADAN,KCOHI vs. ACIT , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

50,000 u/s 80C and 10,74,654/- u/s 80JJAA) in the return. It is also an undisputed fact that the appellant has declare business income of Rs. 7,35,054/- only but claimed the deduction of Rs. 10,74,654/- u/s 80JJAA of the Act. Therefore, the AO/CPC has restricted the deduction to the extent of income declared under

THOMAS CHACKO,KOCHI vs. THE DCIT KOCHI CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

50,000 u/s 80C and 10,74,654/- u/s 80JJAA) in the return. It is also an undisputed fact that the appellant has declare business income of Rs. 7,35,054/- only but claimed the deduction of Rs. 10,74,654/- u/s 80JJAA of the Act. Therefore, the AO/CPC has restricted the deduction to the extent of income declared under

SRI.THOMAS CHACKO PROPRIETOR OF GROUP MUKKADAN,KCOHI vs. ACIT WARD-2, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

50,000 u/s 80C and 10,74,654/- u/s 80JJAA) in the return. It is also an undisputed fact that the appellant has declare business income of Rs. 7,35,054/- only but claimed the deduction of Rs. 10,74,654/- u/s 80JJAA of the Act. Therefore, the AO/CPC has restricted the deduction to the extent of income declared under

ESAF SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ITO, TDS WARD, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

50,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- etc. paid to senior citizens by accepting invalid Form 15G/H. Accordingly, the TDS officer was of the opinion that the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act and held that the appellant is an assessee in default and demanded

ESAF SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ITO, TDS WARD, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

50,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- etc. paid to senior citizens by accepting invalid Form 15G/H. Accordingly, the TDS officer was of the opinion that the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act and held that the appellant is an assessee in default and demanded

ESAF SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ITO, TDS WARD, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

50,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- etc. paid to senior citizens by accepting invalid Form 15G/H. Accordingly, the TDS officer was of the opinion that the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act and held that the appellant is an assessee in default and demanded

ESAF SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ITO, TDS WARD, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

50,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- etc. paid to senior citizens by accepting invalid Form 15G/H. Accordingly, the TDS officer was of the opinion that the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act and held that the appellant is an assessee in default and demanded

ESAF SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ITO, TDS WARD, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Esaf Small Finance Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Building No. Vii/83//8,Esaf Bhavan, Thirssur- Palakkad Nh, Mannuthy P.O., Thrissur 680651 [Pan: Aaece2619Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer - Tds, Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Anandan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025

50,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- etc. paid to senior citizens by accepting invalid Form 15G/H. Accordingly, the TDS officer was of the opinion that the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act and held that the appellant is an assessee in default and demanded

KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , RANGE -1 , KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited Athani Aluva Adit, Range-1 Vs. Ernakulam Kochi Kerala 683 585 Pan No : Aaack9968Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Mrs. Remya S. Menon, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.4.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064318699(1) For The Ay 2011-12 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act and Rs.1,02,500/- has been disallowed. ii. Expenditure on which TDS was not deducted and remitted before the date of filing of return has been disallowed u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. iii. Loss on revaluation of tools amounting to Rs.4,48,719/- has been added back to the returned income

GRASS ASSOCIATES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ITO,CORP.WARD-13), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 08.12.2011 for assessment year 2009-10. 2. The brief facts leading to the instant appeal are that the Assessing Officer (AO) in assessment proceedings queried the assessee in respect of the expenditure claimed in the sum of Rs.37.43 lakh under the account head ‘repossession charges’. The assessee-company

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD vs. THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS was not deducted had submitted form 15G/H, without verifying the details or calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. 6. The act of the learned Commissioner of income tax(appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs.5,84,50,143/- being 30% of 19,48,33,810 is against the facts and circumstances of the case

IFTHIKAR KARUPPAMVEETIL ABDUL RAHMAN,CHAVAKKAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

50,000/- being the premium paid component of the Life Insurance Policy. F. On the facts and in circumstances the Hon'ble DRP erred in not considering the report called for from the Assessing Officer in its true perspective. G. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble DRP/Learned AO/erred in taxing

M/S.KERALA FEEDS LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, TRICHUR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kerala Feeds Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Department, Kallettumkara, Irinjalakunda, National Faceless Appeal Thrissur – 680 683. Centre (Nfac). Pan : Aaack 9796 N Ito (Tds), Thrissur. Appellant Respondent

TDS by the assessee. However, the CIT(A) has though admitted that the claim of the assessee needs factual examination, concluded the assessment without examining the facts of the case and rejected the appeal of the assessee. The learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, MANGALAPURAM BRANCH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea