ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. DCIT (24 taxmann.com 59) (Kochi Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (189 ITR 182) (Ker.) I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 8.6 The Ld. DR submitted that decision relied upon by the assessee was given in an entirely different context. At that point of time income form value added rubber was never

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. DCIT (24 taxmann.com 59) (Kochi Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (189 ITR 182) (Ker.) I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 8.6 The Ld. DR submitted that decision relied upon by the assessee was given in an entirely different context. At that point of time income form value added rubber was never

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. DCIT (24 taxmann.com 59) (Kochi Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (189 ITR 182) (Ker.) I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 8.6 The Ld. DR submitted that decision relied upon by the assessee was given in an entirely different context. At that point of time income form value added rubber was never

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. DCIT (24 taxmann.com 59) (Kochi Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (189 ITR 182) (Ker.) I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 8.6 The Ld. DR submitted that decision relied upon by the assessee was given in an entirely different context. At that point of time income form value added rubber was never

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

3 and its sub-grounds were not pressed by the learned Counsel for the assessee. According the same are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Ground No.4 and its sub-grounds are in respect of erroneous disallowance of reimbursement of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. The brief facts of the case are that

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

3 and its sub-grounds were not pressed by the learned Counsel for the assessee. According the same are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Ground No.4 and its sub-grounds are in respect of erroneous disallowance of reimbursement of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. The brief facts of the case are that

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

3. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs.7,49,20,296/- u/s 40(a)(ia) without considering the submissions and case laws put forth by the appellant. 4. The appellants submits that it had deducted tax at source on the various payments made during the period

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

disallow sums mentioned in section 194A(3)(viia). vi. examining whether contingency expense claimed is an allowable item. vii. Ensure that interest income on deposits is accounted for in accordance with provisions of section 145. viii. computation of income in accordance with cash or mercantile system as applicable. ix. consideration of Form 3CD which is to be called

THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

disallow sums mentioned in section 194A(3)(viia). vi. examining whether contingency expense claimed is an allowable item. vii. Ensure that interest income on deposits is accounted for in accordance with provisions of section 145. viii. computation of income in accordance with cash or mercantile system as applicable. ix. consideration of Form 3CD which is to be called

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

disallow sums mentioned in section 194A(3)(viia). vi. examining whether contingency expense claimed is an allowable item. vii. Ensure that interest income on deposits is accounted for in accordance with provisions of section 145. viii. computation of income in accordance with cash or mercantile system as applicable. ix. consideration of Form 3CD which is to be called

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

disallow sums mentioned in section 194A(3)(viia). vi. examining whether contingency expense claimed is an allowable item. vii. Ensure that interest income on deposits is accounted for in accordance with provisions of section 145. viii. computation of income in accordance with cash or mercantile system as applicable. ix. consideration of Form 3CD which is to be called

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

disallow sums mentioned in section 194A(3)(viia). vi. examining whether contingency expense claimed is an allowable item. vii. Ensure that interest income on deposits is accounted for in accordance with provisions of section 145. viii. computation of income in accordance with cash or mercantile system as applicable. ix. consideration of Form 3CD which is to be called

M/S.POPULAR DEALERS,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA

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

201(1A) of Rs.9,48,495/- totaling to Rs.34,44,533/-. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in remitting back the issue to the AO with the direction to give a final opportunity to the assessee to produce form 15G /15H collected before the due date from the deductees and give credit to the same, applicable

M/S.POPULAR DEALERS,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA

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

201(1A) of Rs.9,48,495/- totaling to Rs.34,44,533/-. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in remitting back the issue to the AO with the direction to give a final opportunity to the assessee to produce form 15G /15H collected before the due date from the deductees and give credit to the same, applicable

M/S.POPULAR TRADERS,PATHANMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

201(1A) of Rs.9,48,495/- totaling to Rs.34,44,533/-. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in remitting back the issue to the AO with the direction to give a final opportunity to the assessee to produce form 15G /15H collected before the due date from the deductees and give credit to the same, applicable

M/S.POPULAR PRINTERS,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO (TDS), ALAPPUZHA

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

201(1A) of Rs.9,48,495/- totaling to Rs.34,44,533/-. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in remitting back the issue to the AO with the direction to give a final opportunity to the assessee to produce form 15G /15H collected before the due date from the deductees and give credit to the same, applicable

M/S.POPULAR DEALERS,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA

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

201(1A) of Rs.9,48,495/- totaling to Rs.34,44,533/-. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in remitting back the issue to the AO with the direction to give a final opportunity to the assessee to produce form 15G /15H collected before the due date from the deductees and give credit to the same, applicable

THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR TRADERS, PATHANMTHITTA

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

201(1A) of Rs.9,48,495/- totaling to Rs.34,44,533/-. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in remitting back the issue to the AO with the direction to give a final opportunity to the assessee to produce form 15G /15H collected before the due date from the deductees and give credit to the same, applicable