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

TDS) further observed that while computing the total taxable income of the assessee the deduction under Section 80C of the Act can be allowed

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

TDS) further observed that while computing the total taxable income of the assessee the deduction under Section 80C of the Act can be allowed

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

TDS) further observed that while computing the total taxable income of the assessee the deduction under Section 80C of the Act can be allowed

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

TDS) further observed that while computing the total taxable income of the assessee the deduction under Section 80C of the Act can be allowed

TRESA JOLLY,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

TDS amount deducted by the employer. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny by CASS and notice u/s.143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) was issued, for which the assessee furnished copy of acknowledgement for filing revised return and the annexure filed along with the return and declared her residential status as resident and withdrew

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 the head "income

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 the head "income

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 the head "income

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

80C of the Act in respect of the premium paid to SBI, [therefore, he did not include redemption payment of premium amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in his return of income] nor claimed any deduction under section 10(10D) of the Act and offered 7 ITA.No.119/COCH./2024 Rs.3,09,000/- for tax. However, since SBI (Payer) had deducted