M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

b). Accordingly, the interest chargeable would be u/s.234A, from 01.8.2007 (01.8.2008) to 28.12.2010. The amendment to an assessment pursuant to an order, inter alia, u/s.254, as in the instant case, only impacts interest u/s. 234A(1) in terms of the principal sum, on variation, downward or upward, in assessed tax. The same would not operate to extend the period

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

b). Accordingly, the interest chargeable would be u/s.234A, from 01.8.2007 (01.8.2008) to 28.12.2010. The amendment to an assessment pursuant to an order, inter alia, u/s.254, as in the instant case, only impacts interest u/s. 234A(1) in terms of the principal sum, on variation, downward or upward, in assessed tax. The same would not operate to extend the period

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

b). Accordingly, the interest chargeable would be u/s.234A, from 01.8.2007 (01.8.2008) to 28.12.2010. The amendment to an assessment pursuant to an order, inter alia, u/s.254, as in the instant case, only impacts interest u/s. 234A(1) in terms of the principal sum, on variation, downward or upward, in assessed tax. The same would not operate to extend the period

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

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

b) where the total income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order is a loss, the amount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as if it were the total income; (c) in any other case, determined in accordance with the formula— (X-Y) where

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

TDS) is based on the correct legal position and material available on record. 11. I therefore confirm the penalty of Rs.9,12,069/-levied u/s. 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2010-11.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee

ROSE GEORGE KOLLANUR,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

7. ICICI Bank 036689 24.12.2014 Part 733601 538 7031 Received 8. 088355 16.05.2015 Part 733601 776 7031 Received 9. ICICI Bank 088358 19.09.2015 Part 972604 951 10. ICICI Bank Online 19.09.2015 TDS 9820 953 9820 Received 11. HDFC 12. ICICI Bank 088360 20.11.2015 Part 1966302 1067 18750 Received 13. ICICI Bank 088362 04.01.2016 Part 983151 1176 9375 Received 14. ICICI

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

TDS with the Government. 27. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the Section, is required to be read into the Section to give the Section a reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation

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

TDS with the Government. 27. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the Section, is required to be read into the Section to give the Section a reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

TDS to the credit of Central Government during the period May,2009 to July,2009 i.e. before the due date specified i 139(1) of the Act for filing the return of Income. On such facts and circumstances the appellant submits that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked and the disallowance made is unjustified

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

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will