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

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

TDS purposes, has clearly mentioned an employee of the University separately from a Government servant. The section starts as, "where the assessee, being a Government Servant or an employee in a company, cooperative society, local authority, university, institution,....". This clearly emphasises the legislative intention to treat the University as a separate entity than State or local authorities. Further

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

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

TDS purposes, has clearly mentioned an employee of the University separately from a Government servant. The section starts as, "where the assessee, being a Government Servant or an employee in a company, cooperative society, local authority, university, institution,....". This clearly emphasises the legislative intention to treat the University as a separate entity than State or local authorities. Further

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

89,75,09,019 2 Sale of semi finished goods 26,73,908 3 Sale of raw material 1,78,745 4 Purchase of tyres 36,79,783 5 Purchase of raw material 24,69,878 6 Purchase of semi finished goods 13,35,810 7 Purchase of second hand moulds 18,26,398 (purchase of capital goods) 8 Receipt

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

section 195(1) of the Act holding that the amounts paid to lead managers and managers were chargeable to tax in India as fees for technical services within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Appellate Commissioner also upheld the order of the assessing officer. On further appeal before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal

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

section 195(1) of the Act holding that the amounts paid to lead managers and managers were chargeable to tax in India as fees for technical services within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Appellate Commissioner also upheld the order of the assessing officer. On further appeal before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal

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

89; ITA Nos.916 to 919/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2005-06 & 2007-08 to 2009-10) Santhimadom Ayurnikethan Health Resort & Research Institute Trust v. Asst. CIT (iii) any relief of tax allowed under section 90 on account of tax paid in a country outside India; (iv) any relief of tax allowed under section 90A on account of tax paid in a specified territory

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM 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

89; ITA Nos.916 to 919/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2005-06 & 2007-08 to 2009-10) Santhimadom Ayurnikethan Health Resort & Research Institute Trust v. Asst. CIT (iii) any relief of tax allowed under section 90 on account of tax paid in a country outside India; (iv) any relief of tax allowed under section 90A on account of tax paid in a specified territory

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

89; ITA Nos.916 to 919/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2005-06 & 2007-08 to 2009-10) Santhimadom Ayurnikethan Health Resort & Research Institute Trust v. Asst. CIT (iii) any relief of tax allowed under section 90 on account of tax paid in a country outside India; (iv) any relief of tax allowed under section 90A on account of tax paid in a specified territory

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

89; ITA Nos.916 to 919/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2005-06 & 2007-08 to 2009-10) Santhimadom Ayurnikethan Health Resort & Research Institute Trust v. Asst. CIT (iii) any relief of tax allowed under section 90 on account of tax paid in a country outside India; (iv) any relief of tax allowed under section 90A on account of tax paid in a specified territory

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

89,148 without considering the fact that the said contribution was made as a staff welfare measure, for the purpose of benefit of the employees and accordingly eligible as deduction as business expenditure under section 37 of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the amount

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

89,148 without considering the fact that the said contribution was made as a staff welfare measure, for the purpose of benefit of the employees and accordingly eligible as deduction as business expenditure under section 37 of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the amount

KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 115JB. Further, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 21,22,943/- which was paid to Mr. Pradeep Kumar for the supply of latex. The AO treated the said amount as payment made towards the work done by him and therefore TDS should have been deducted and for the failure to deduct tax he disallowed the same

KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 115JB. Further, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 21,22,943/- which was paid to Mr. Pradeep Kumar for the supply of latex. The AO treated the said amount as payment made towards the work done by him and therefore TDS should have been deducted and for the failure to deduct tax he disallowed the same

KILKOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed for the A

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 115JB. Further, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 21,22,943/- which was paid to Mr. Pradeep Kumar for the supply of latex. The AO treated the said amount as payment made towards the work done by him and therefore TDS should have been deducted and for the failure to deduct tax he disallowed the same

THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE KOLLAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee sands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kollam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Chinnakada, Kollam 691001 [Pan: Aaaat4088L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Circle Kollam .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)], Dated 19.05.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A District Co- Operative Bank Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Lending Money To Its Members. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 01.11.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs. 16,14,89,500/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The 2 Kollam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle Kollam (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 23.12.2019 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 26,20,34,663/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made The Following Disallowances/Additions: -

89,500/-. Against the said return of income, the 2 Kollam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. assessment was completed by the ACIT, Circle Kollam (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 23.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 26,20,34,663/-. While doing so, the AO made the following disallowances/additions: - i) Write

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

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- TDS, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

TDS) Tbiruvananthapuram 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan ADR Centre, District Court Kowdiar Complex, Vanchiyoor Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Thiruvananthapuram 695035 PAN – AAAGD2665M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Revenue by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 27.02.2023 Date of pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

TDS) Tbiruvananthapuram 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan ADR Centre, District Court Kowdiar Complex, Vanchiyoor Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Thiruvananthapuram 695035 PAN – AAAGD2665M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Revenue by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 27.02.2023 Date of pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - TDS, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

TDS) Tbiruvananthapuram 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan ADR Centre, District Court Kowdiar Complex, Vanchiyoor Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Thiruvananthapuram 695035 PAN – AAAGD2665M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Revenue by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 27.02.2023 Date of pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed