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

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with

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

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with

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

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI. GEORGE MATHEW, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

disallowance of Rs.1,73,32,803/ - made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for not effecting TDS from the expenses under the head -'Design & CAS expenses', Salary & allowances, Godown rent and professional charges. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in considering the issue on the basis of details provided by the assessee

SRI. GEORGE MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

disallowance of Rs.1,73,32,803/ - made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for not effecting TDS from the expenses under the head -'Design & CAS expenses', Salary & allowances, Godown rent and professional charges. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in considering the issue on the basis of details provided by the assessee

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

Section 250\nof the Act confers the powers on the Commissioner (Appeals)\nto hear and decide appeals as the final adjudicating authority\nof the first appellate level against orders of the Assessing\nOfficer. Such an order uls 250 is expected to represent a\nconclusive adjudication on merits or at least the appellate\nauthority's decision resolving the issues raised

THE KALAKKODU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahu(Assessment Year:2018-19

section 250. "As per Circular No. 37/2016, the board has accepted the settled position that the disallowances made under section

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD.,KOLLAM vs. THE DICT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasthe Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Sankaramangalam Circle - 1, Kollam Chavara, Kollam 691001 Vs. [Pan:Aaact8118R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub- section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly

VISWANATHAN KRISHNAKUMAR,ALUVA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2015-16, date of order 26/06/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (in short, ‘Ld. AO’) passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date of order 27/03/2022. 2 ITA 606/Coch/2025 VishwanathanKrishnakumar 2. The brief facts

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance as under : - 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In M/s Stock & Bond Trading Company (supra) one of the questions was whether the The South Indian Bank Ltd. Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO under provisions to section 37(1) being penalty imposed by the National Stock

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance as under : - 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In M/s Stock & Bond Trading Company (supra) one of the questions was whether the The South Indian Bank Ltd. Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO under provisions to section 37(1) being penalty imposed by the National Stock

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance as under : - 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In M/s Stock & Bond Trading Company (supra) one of the questions was whether the The South Indian Bank Ltd. Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO under provisions to section 37(1) being penalty imposed by the National Stock

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance as under : - 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In M/s Stock & Bond Trading Company (supra) one of the questions was whether the The South Indian Bank Ltd. Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO under provisions to section 37(1) being penalty imposed by the National Stock

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance as under : - 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In M/s Stock & Bond Trading Company (supra) one of the questions was whether the The South Indian Bank Ltd. Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO under provisions to section 37(1) being penalty imposed by the National Stock

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance as under : - 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In M/s Stock & Bond Trading Company (supra) one of the questions was whether the The South Indian Bank Ltd. Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO under provisions to section 37(1) being penalty imposed by the National Stock

M/S THE REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE OF KERALA LTD,KANNUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR RANGE

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Time Prescribed. Accordingly, The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned.

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. 1.1. There is a delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal. In the application seeking condonation of delay it has been explained that the Accountants Manager who had been responsible for handling Assessment Year 2010-2011 income tax matters was on Medical Leave prior

MINA WOOD INDUSTRIES,MATTANNUR vs. ITO, W-3, KANNUR

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhmina Wood Industries The Income Tax Officer Iii/656 B, Kallur Ward - 3, Kannur Mattannur Vs. Kannur 670702 [Pan: Aagfm2716D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: - “1. The appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dismissing the appeal is against the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and hence opposed to the provisions

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 250 of the Act confers the powers on the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear and decide appeals as the final adjudicating authority of the first appellate level against orders of the Assessing Officer. Such an order uls 250 is expected to represent a conclusive adjudication on merits or at least the appellate authority's decision resolving the issues raised