REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

1,17,70,000/- being 10% of the labour charges on adhoc basis. The contention of the appellant that in the absence of incriminating material casting doubts on the genuineness of the expenditure incurred on labour charges, no addition can be made u/s. 153A of the Act cannot be accepted for the reason that it is an unabated assessment

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

1,17,70,000/- being 10% of the labour charges on adhoc basis. The contention of the appellant that in the absence of incriminating material casting doubts on the genuineness of the expenditure incurred on labour charges, no addition can be made u/s. 153A of the Act cannot be accepted for the reason that it is an unabated assessment

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

1,17,70,000/- being 10% of the labour charges on adhoc basis. The contention of the appellant that in the absence of incriminating material casting doubts on the genuineness of the expenditure incurred on labour charges, no addition can be made u/s. 153A of the Act cannot be accepted for the reason that it is an unabated assessment

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

1,17,70,000/- being 10% of the labour charges on adhoc basis. The contention of the appellant that in the absence of incriminating material casting doubts on the genuineness of the expenditure incurred on labour charges, no addition can be made u/s. 153A of the Act cannot be accepted for the reason that it is an unabated assessment

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

disallowing the claim of Rs 14,06,31,409/- u/s 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS 5.1 The Ld. AO has erred in considering reimbursement of Rs 12,68,42,880/- towards Salary and other R&D expenses within the scope of "Fee for technical Services under explanation 2 of section 9(1

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1) of the Act would mean "actual expenditure incurred, held that no disallowance could be made under the said Section when no expenditure had 'actually' been incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning of the exempt income. Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1) of the Act would mean "actual expenditure incurred, held that no disallowance could be made under the said Section when no expenditure had 'actually' been incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning of the exempt income. Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1) of the Act would mean "actual expenditure incurred, held that no disallowance could be made under the said Section when no expenditure had 'actually' been incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning of the exempt income. Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1) of the Act would mean "actual expenditure incurred, held that no disallowance could be made under the said Section when no expenditure had 'actually' been incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning of the exempt income. Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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

M/S NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO-OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals and the stay applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Naduvannur Regional Co-Operative Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Naduvannur P.O., Kozhikode 673614 [Pan: Aaban2276P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(3), Kozhikode

disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80(P) of the Act, at a total income of Rs. 42,64,542/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. When the appeal was called on, nobody

PAZHAYANNUR FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD ,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO WARD 2(4), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals and the stay applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

42,362/- for AY 2008-09. For AY 20090-10 the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 20.12.2016 at a total income Rs. 39,65,308/- after disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed

PAZHAYANNUR FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD ,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO WARD 2(4), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals and the stay applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

42,362/- for AY 2008-09. For AY 20090-10 the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 20.12.2016 at a total income Rs. 39,65,308/- after disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

1,32,42,920/- was paid towards fees for services on which tax was deducted at source and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source. It was claimed before the AO that the balance amount represents the reimbursement of expenditure. No profit element was embedded. Therefore, no tax was deducted at source. However

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

1,32,42,920/- was paid towards fees for services on which tax was deducted at source and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source. It was claimed before the AO that the balance amount represents the reimbursement of expenditure. No profit element was embedded. Therefore, no tax was deducted at source. However

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

1,32,42,920/- was paid towards fees for services on which tax was deducted at source and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source. It was claimed before the AO that the balance amount represents the reimbursement of expenditure. No profit element was embedded. Therefore, no tax was deducted at source. However

M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

42 of the Warehousing Corporation Act 1962, with the previous sanction of the State Government. Copy enclosed Annexure-l c) It is submitted that the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Act 1952 are not applicable to the appellant- Kerala State Warehousing Corporation. Accordingly, it is the submission of the appellant that the due date prescribed under the said

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

1,40,42,400/-. The assessee initially claimed Rs 86,24,063/- being investment in residential house property at "Skyline Infinity', Thrissur and Rs 54,18,377 has been admitted as taxable Long Term Capital Gains. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer issued notice stating that the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section