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

section 43A of the Act, it is claimed that the amount of loss debited to Profit & Loss A/c. for the assessment year 2012-13 is reversed by crediting to Profit & Loss A/c. for the assessment year under consideration. This amount was claimed as deduction while computing taxable income. The AO, placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee

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

GULF ASIA CONTRACTING CO. PVT. LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 1 (1), KOLLAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gulf Asia Contracting Company Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Xxv/812 Srivaldsam, Thevally P.O. Kollam 691009 [Pan: Aaecg1332Q] Vs. Acit, Circle - 1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bavan, Karbala Jn. Kollam 690001 Appellant By: Shri Rajeev, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.02.2025

54,378/- appearing as per Form 26AS was not given by the AO despite the claim made for enhancement of TDS credit during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A), however, denied the claim for enhancement of TDS credit on the ground that the credit for TDS cannot be granted more than the claim of the assessee made in the return

THANNERMUKKOM SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

TDS Limited, No.A 809, Alappuzha Thannermukkom North, Vs. Thannermukkom, Cherthala, Alappuzha, Kerala. PIN 688527 PAN –AACAM1602K Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Kabil Chandran, Adv Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 09.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 13.12.2022 O R D E R Per: S.S. Godara, J.M. These assessee’s twin appeals for A.Ys

THANNERMUKKOM SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

TDS Limited, No.A 809, Alappuzha Thannermukkom North, Vs. Thannermukkom, Cherthala, Alappuzha, Kerala. PIN 688527 PAN –AACAM1602K Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Kabil Chandran, Adv Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 09.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 13.12.2022 O R D E R Per: S.S. Godara, J.M. These assessee’s twin appeals for A.Ys

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

54,240. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Vide order dated 24/12/2010 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 256,58,53,626. The Assessing

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

TDS being deducted by the assessee. Respectfully following the Supreme Court decision, I hold that there was no liability for the appellant to deduct tax at source u/s 195( 1) and accordingly the addition of Rs. 55,78,022/- is deleted.” 5. From the above order of the CIT(A) we observed that he has done a good reasoned order

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

54,37,161. The State Government, however, filed an appeal before the High Court against the judgment. However, the Land Acquisition Officer released 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

MS/ASHLY ALUMINIUM P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Ashly Aluminium P. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer T.C. 38/2397(7) Ward – 1(1) Mundackal Chambers Trivandrum Vs. Aryasalai Trivandrum 695036

section 200A wef 01-06- 2015 is sustainable. 3. CIT(A) erred in holding that the levy is to compensate the department for the additional interest and expenses on processing due to the delay in filing the TDS return when the appellant has filed it before the end of the previous year itself and there is no loss of revenue

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHOONDAL BRANCH,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHELEMBRA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHELEMBRA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHOONDAL BRANCH,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHELEMBRA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHOKKAD BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHENGOTTUKAVU BRANCH,KOYILANDY vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

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

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHENGOTTUKAVU BRANCH,KOYILANDY vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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