THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

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

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

5. CIT vs. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd. (79 taxmann.com 411(Madras) 6. MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT, Mumbai) 7. DCIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. (139 ITD 628) (Del.) 8. ACIT vs. Sil Investments Ltd. (54 SOT 54 (Delhi) I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 303/Coch/2017 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. In our opinion

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

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

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

5. CIT vs. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd. (79 taxmann.com 411(Madras) 6. MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT, Mumbai) 7. DCIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. (139 ITD 628) (Del.) 8. ACIT vs. Sil Investments Ltd. (54 SOT 54 (Delhi) I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 303/Coch/2017 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. In our opinion

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

5. After hearing the learned D.R. we observed from the order of the CPC issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act that there was a disallowance under Section 36(i)(va) of the Act of Rs.4,33,252/- for non-remittance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI within the due date as per the respective Act. This has been

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.

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act in respect of payments totaling Rs. 72,30,560/ made directly into the bank accounts of suppliers, despite the same being compelled by business exigencies and practical limitations of the banking facilities available to the appellant. 4. The lower authorities erred in treating section 40A(3) as a rigid rule, overlooking that

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

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

40A(9) of the Act, the claim of deduction made for any payment to superannuation fund must be in accordance with section 36(1)(iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act. Since the assessee has not been able to prove that it is a recognized provident fund or an approved gratuity fund as mentioned in section

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

40A(9) of the Act, the claim of deduction made for any payment to superannuation fund must be in accordance with section 36(1)(iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act. Since the assessee has not been able to prove that it is a recognized provident fund or an approved gratuity fund as mentioned in section

KKR AGRO MILLS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11 Kkr Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Iii/678, Kkr Building, Okkal Kalady, Circle – 1(2), Ernakulam – 683 550. Kochi. Pan : Aabck 6542 K Assessee Respondent

section 40A(2) it is clear that to attract the disallowance, the expenditure incurred should be excessive and unreasonable. In the given it is factually established that the price paid is not unreasonably excessive and the transaction is not done with an intention to evade tax. Therefore in our considered view no disallowance is warranted in respect of the price

M/S.CHELANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ITO, CALICUT

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

Bench: S/Shri Shri P K Bansal & George George K, Jm M/S Chelannur Service Cooperative Vs The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd Ward 2(3), Calicut No.F 1242 Po Chelannur Calicut 673 616 ( Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) 3 Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. For the assessment year 2010-11, the assessment was completed vide order dated 26.3.2013 by rejecting the assessee’s 1 claim of deduction

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

disallowance of provision fund of Rs. 5,75,04,368/- by holding that the appellant had not made the claim in their return of income placing reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Wipro Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 212 DTR (SC) 369 (ii) CIT vs. Mr. P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Malayala Manorama

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

disallowance of provision fund of Rs. 5,75,04,368/- by holding that the appellant had not made the claim in their return of income placing reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Wipro Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 212 DTR (SC) 369 (ii) CIT vs. Mr. P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Malayala Manorama

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

5 of the BR Act and hence, it is not a co-operative bank which is a primary agricultural credit society.” 5.5 In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in assessee’s own case (supra), we hold that the orders of the A.O. and CIT(A) in denying the benefit of deduction

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

5 of the BR Act and hence, it is not a co-operative bank which is a primary agricultural credit society.” 5.5 In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in assessee’s own case (supra), we hold that the orders of the A.O. and CIT(A) in denying the benefit of deduction

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

5 of the BR Act and hence, it is not a co-operative bank which is a primary agricultural credit society.” 5.5 In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in assessee’s own case (supra), we hold that the orders of the A.O. and CIT(A) in denying the benefit of deduction

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

5. Reading of Section 40a(ia) along with 2nd proviso and Section 201(1) along with proviso, it would mean that the mandate or requirement on the part of the payer to deduct tax at source is not so strict if they are able to show that the payee or the recipient of the amounts has paid tax in accordance

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) of the Act. The assessee filed their detailed reply and submitted that raw materials were purchased through their lorry drivers and the materials purchased is below Rs. 20,000/- and therefore no single transaction exceeds Rs. 20,000/-. The assessee also explained the facts and circumstances under which the materials were purchased from various Page

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

section 40A(3) are not applicable. 7. The Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in not accepting that the expense was incurred for purchase of fixed assets which is neither income nor expenditure, but the amount debited to the fixed asset accounts. These expenses have not been claimed as an expense through 5 ITA No.219/Coch/2025. Sri.Julius Ruben

M/S.SB PUBLICATIONS P. LTD,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri George George K

section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act, which will tantamount to duplication of disallowance of expenses. Therefore, it was submitted that the disallowance of expenses on adhoc basis may be deleted. 5.2 The learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. 5.3 I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal