SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A(2

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A(2

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A(2

M/S SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A(2

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)

2 The Appellant humbly submits that the payments under reference, are made to Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) in cash in excess of Rs. 10000 could not be treated as in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, as the KSEB is a Government Department under Kerala Government headed by a Minister. The appellant humbly submit that

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 40A(3) of the Act. The aforesaid disallowance was confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) as the appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the aforesaid disallowance was dismissed by the Learned CIT(A) vide Order, dated 24/03/2025, impugned by way of present appeal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2

THOMSON GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOMBODINJAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Thomson Granites Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant X/616, Kambodinjamakkal Thazhekkad P.O., Thrissur 680697 [Pan: Aacct0876E] Vs. Acit, Circle - 1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Municipal Office Road Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680001 Appellant By: Shri Aneesh Vishwanathan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2025

disallowed the expenditure incurred in cash on fuel or Rs. 4,44,47,632/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and remuneration to the Directors of Rs. 72,00,000/- invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) & 40A(3) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, an appeal was filed before

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

2. Since identical facts and issues involve in these appeals, these appeals heard together and disposed of vide this common order. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, facts relevant to the A.Y. 2017-18 in ITA No. 474/Coch/2025 are stated herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

2. Since identical facts and issues involve in these appeals, these appeals heard together and disposed of vide this common order. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, facts relevant to the A.Y. 2017-18 in ITA No. 474/Coch/2025 are stated herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant

CANON GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 40A (3) which are wholly unjust and unsustainable. K. The appellant shall produce all vouchers, affidavits and supporting documents including the documents produced before the authorities below to substantiate the case that the disallowance made u/s. 40A(3) of the Act and the consequent addition of Rs. 71,99,228/- was wholly unjustified and unsustainable For these and other

JULIUS RUBEN,KOCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

40A of the Act except in specified circumstances as referred to in Rule 6DD of the Income- tax Rules, 1962. However, there is no provision to disallow the capital expenditure incurred in cash. Further, section 35AD of the Act, inter-alia provides for investment linked deduction on the amount capital expenditure incurred, wholly or exclusively for the purposes of business

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining an addition of Rs.1582816/- out of the disallowance of sales tax remittance made in the assessment order. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance on the ground that the payments do not relate to the financial year 2014-15. 3. The Commissioner of Income

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, without entering into a finding that there is failure to deduct tax in respect of each item. The Trivandrum Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. 8) The learned Assessing Officer went wrong in invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. Appellant prays that the Assessing Officer may be directed

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ADDITIONAL JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, without entering into a finding that there is failure to deduct tax in respect of each item. The Trivandrum Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. 8) The learned Assessing Officer went wrong in invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. Appellant prays that the Assessing Officer may be directed

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

In the result, appeal of the appellant stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mina Wood Industries .......... Appellant Iii/656 B, Kallur, Matannur Kannur 670702 [Pan: Aagmf2716D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward -3, Kannur Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.02.2025

2 Mina Wood Industries Tax Officer, Ward-3, Kannur (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 19.12.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 15,00,360/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance of Rs. 13,06,452/- invoking the provisions of section 40A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

40A(ia) for disallowance of expenses where TDS was not deducted. The assessee denied the status of the society as a co-operative society and consequently, treating interest income of Rs.2,95,38,828/- as income from other sources, thereby denying deduction under Section 80P(2

VICT PLY INDUSTRIES,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD 4, KNNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Victply Industries .......... Appellant Ap Vii/585B, Industrial Development Park Andoor, Parassinikkadavu, Kannur, Kerala [Pan: Aagfv 5189 D] Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Kannur .......... Respondent

2 Victply Industries income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward-4, Kannur (for short, 'AO') vide order dated 17/11/2017 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') at a total income of Rs. 14,32,070/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed the electricity charges paid to Kerala Electricity Board in cash

PANICHIKANDY MOHANDASAN,KASARGOD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

2 Panichikandy Mohandasan assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO), after making several disallowances, at total income of Rs. 3,73,50,420/-. 3. The disallowances, inter alia, with which we are concerned include the disallowance of Rs. 16,40,710/- being the payment made to Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) invoking provisions of section 40A