FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

154 of the Act as its purpose is to deal with the apparent mistake on record pertaining to previous year 2003-04 only. Be that as it may, we are of the view that rectification is not meant to deal with detailed fishing enquiries TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

154 of the Act as its purpose is to deal with the apparent mistake on record pertaining to previous year 2003-04 only. Be that as it may, we are of the view that rectification is not meant to deal with detailed fishing enquiries TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

154 of the Act as its purpose is to deal with the apparent mistake on record pertaining to previous year 2003-04 only. Be that as it may, we are of the view that rectification is not meant to deal with detailed fishing enquiries TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

154 of the Act as its purpose is to deal with the apparent mistake on record pertaining to previous year 2003-04 only. Be that as it may, we are of the view that rectification is not meant to deal with detailed fishing enquiries TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

154 of the Act as its purpose is to deal with the apparent mistake on record pertaining to previous year 2003-04 only. Be that as it may, we are of the view that rectification is not meant to deal with detailed fishing enquiries TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

154 of the Act as its purpose is to deal with the apparent mistake on record pertaining to previous year 2003-04 only. Be that as it may, we are of the view that rectification is not meant to deal with detailed fishing enquiries TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. PCIT, , THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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 Pcit, Aayakar Bhavan, North Block, ……………… Respondent New Annex Building Mananchira, Kozhikode Kerala.

section 263 of the Act, for the assessment year 2018-19. 2 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) erred in passing order u/s 154 dated 16- 05-2024 rectifying his own order

MR. PREM MUKUNDAN ,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. (Judicial Member), Ms. Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member)

disallowing TDS credit in the name of assessee’s wife. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the CPC in the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) read as follows:- “In the instant case, the interest income accrued

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

1. Total income considered in the order generated by the system amounts to Rs. 268,45,53,626/- As per the manual tax calculation sheet enclosed with the order as well as our workings, total income amounts to Rs.268,43,53,626/-only. 3 2. TDS considered in the manual tax calculation sheet enclosed with the order amounts to Rs.5

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

1), Kochi v. SFO Technologies Private Limited “The Appellant in the course of hearing and submissions has segregated the explanation into three segments: a.Applicability of Section 14A disallowance on Foreign Investments b.Applicability of Section 14A disallowance for investments made in subsidiary companies as an extended arm of the business of the assessee. c.Applicability of Section 14A disallowance on other investments

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

1), Kochi v. SFO Technologies Private Limited “The Appellant in the course of hearing and submissions has segregated the explanation into three segments: a.Applicability of Section 14A disallowance on Foreign Investments b.Applicability of Section 14A disallowance for investments made in subsidiary companies as an extended arm of the business of the assessee. c.Applicability of Section 14A disallowance on other investments

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ERNAKULAM

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

1), Kochi v. SFO Technologies Private Limited “The Appellant in the course of hearing and submissions has segregated the explanation into three segments: a.Applicability of Section 14A disallowance on Foreign Investments b.Applicability of Section 14A disallowance for investments made in subsidiary companies as an extended arm of the business of the assessee. c.Applicability of Section 14A disallowance on other investments

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

1), Kochi v. SFO Technologies Private Limited “The Appellant in the course of hearing and submissions has segregated the explanation into three segments: a.Applicability of Section 14A disallowance on Foreign Investments b.Applicability of Section 14A disallowance for investments made in subsidiary companies as an extended arm of the business of the assessee. c.Applicability of Section 14A disallowance on other investments

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

1), Kochi v. SFO Technologies Private Limited “The Appellant in the course of hearing and submissions has segregated the explanation into three segments: a.Applicability of Section 14A disallowance on Foreign Investments b.Applicability of Section 14A disallowance for investments made in subsidiary companies as an extended arm of the business of the assessee. c.Applicability of Section 14A disallowance on other investments