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

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

TDS u/s 194A. The Ld. AR submitted that Section I94A does not apply to individuals unless he is a person liable to tax audit u/s 44AB of the I.T. Act 1961 and in this case, the assessee, being an individual is not within the purview of the said section. Therefore, it was submitted that the department will have to I.T.A

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

50% of such management fees payable for the captioned A Y, had been reversed by the Appellant. The AO in this respect, has disregarded the directions mentioned in Circular No. 7/2007 dated 23 October 2007. Ground No. 8- Consequential levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. 8.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

50% of such management fees payable for the captioned A Y, had been reversed by the Appellant. The AO in this respect, has disregarded the directions mentioned in Circular No. 7/2007 dated 23 October 2007. Ground No. 8- Consequential levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. 8.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

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

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

50,909 was paid to the assessee. The assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2014- 2015 on 21.02.2015 disclosing total income of Rs.1,40,350 and claimed the 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

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

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

TORRY HARRIS SEA FOODS LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

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

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

50,26,341/-. While going through the Transfer Pricing study submitted by you for A. Y 2012-13, it is seen that you have adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method as the most appropriate method while benchmarking the international transactions undertaken with Associated Enterprises. You have compared your AE sale price with the rates published by The Marine Products Export Development

THE ITO (TDS), KOTTAYAM vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM

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

50,000/- during the instant year. 9. As regards the second amount of Rs.1,88,720/- received by the assessee during the year towards the arrears of leave encashment, it is noticed that the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(10AA)(i) which was refused by the AO by holding the case to be covered under sub-clause (ii) of section

THE ITO (TDS), KOTTAYAM vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM

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

50,000/- during the instant year. 9. As regards the second amount of Rs.1,88,720/- received by the assessee during the year towards the arrears of leave encashment, it is noticed that the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(10AA)(i) which was refused by the AO by holding the case to be covered under sub-clause (ii) of section