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

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(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are

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

section 9(1)(vii) r.w.s. Explanation 2 of the Act and therefore the payment made to managers are income by way of fees for technical services deemed to accrue or arise in India. Referring to the DTAA between India and UK, the Tribunal found that no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know how or process, etc. was made available

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are

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

section 9(1)(vii) r.w.s. Explanation 2 of the Act and therefore the payment made to managers are income by way of fees for technical services deemed to accrue or arise in India. Referring to the DTAA between India and UK, the Tribunal found that no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know how or process, etc. was made available

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are

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

section 9(1)(vii) r.w.s. Explanation 2 of the Act and therefore the payment made to managers are income by way of fees for technical services deemed to accrue or arise in India. Referring to the DTAA between India and UK, the Tribunal found that no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know how or process, etc. was made available

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are

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

section 9(1)(vii) r.w.s. Explanation 2 of the Act and therefore the payment made to managers are income by way of fees for technical services deemed to accrue or arise in India. Referring to the DTAA between India and UK, the Tribunal found that no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know how or process, etc. was made available

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are

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

section 9(1)(vii) r.w.s. Explanation 2 of the Act and therefore the payment made to managers are income by way of fees for technical services deemed to accrue or arise in India. Referring to the DTAA between India and UK, the Tribunal found that no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know how or process, etc. was made available

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

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

9. At the time of arguments, the Ld.AR submitted that the penalty proceedings initiated u/s. 270A(1) and 270A(8) is not correct since the Act had used the word “may” in sub-section (1) of section 270A which means that the AO has the discretion to impose or not to impose penalty based on the facts and circumstances

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

TDS 5.1 The Ld. AO has erred in considering reimbursement of Rs 12,68,42,880/- towards Salary and other R&D expenses within the scope of "Fee for technical Services under explanation 2 of section 9(1

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

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

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

1), (4) and (5). On the question of the tax deduction under Section 194J, the direction in Bharati cellular Ltd. (supra) was followed insofar as directing examination of a ITA No.606/Coch/2010 & Ors. 5 M/s.Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. technical expert to ascertain as to whether there is a human intervention which alone could lead to the TDS being deducted

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

1), (4) and (5). On the question of the tax deduction under Section 194J, the direction in Bharati cellular Ltd. (supra) was followed insofar as directing examination of a ITA No.606/Coch/2010 & Ors. 5 M/s.Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. technical expert to ascertain as to whether there is a human intervention which alone could lead to the TDS being deducted

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

1), (4) and (5). On the question of the tax deduction under Section 194J, the direction in Bharati cellular Ltd. (supra) was followed insofar as directing examination of a ITA No.606/Coch/2010 & Ors. 5 M/s.Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. technical expert to ascertain as to whether there is a human intervention which alone could lead to the TDS being deducted

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

1), (4) and (5). On the question of the tax deduction under Section 194J, the direction in Bharati cellular Ltd. (supra) was followed insofar as directing examination of a ITA No.606/Coch/2010 & Ors. 5 M/s.Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. technical expert to ascertain as to whether there is a human intervention which alone could lead to the TDS being deducted

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

1), (4) and (5). On the question of the tax deduction under Section 194J, the direction in Bharati cellular Ltd. (supra) was followed insofar as directing examination of a ITA No.606/Coch/2010 & Ors. 5 M/s.Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. technical expert to ascertain as to whether there is a human intervention which alone could lead to the TDS being deducted

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

1), (4) and (5). On the question of the tax deduction under Section 194J, the direction in Bharati cellular Ltd. (supra) was followed insofar as directing examination of a ITA No.606/Coch/2010 & Ors. 5 M/s.Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. technical expert to ascertain as to whether there is a human intervention which alone could lead to the TDS being deducted

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

1), (4) and (5). On the question of the tax deduction under Section 194J, the direction in Bharati cellular Ltd. (supra) was followed insofar as directing examination of a ITA No.606/Coch/2010 & Ors. 5 M/s.Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. technical expert to ascertain as to whether there is a human intervention which alone could lead to the TDS being deducted

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

1), (4) and (5). On the question of the tax deduction under Section 194J, the direction in Bharati cellular Ltd. (supra) was followed insofar as directing examination of a ITA No.606/Coch/2010 & Ors. 5 M/s.Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. technical expert to ascertain as to whether there is a human intervention which alone could lead to the TDS being deducted