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

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

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)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). Further, the AO made addition of Rs.13,47,19,707/- under Section 68

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

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

M/S.VIJAYA HOSPITALITY AND RESORTS LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADCIT(TDS), COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

section 2738 of I.T. Act 1961. 9. It was also observed from the impugned order that the appellant has been a habitual defaulter in the matter of depositing taxes deducted at sources to the Central Government account. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced here in for the sake of clarity: "Verification of the records revealed that

SMT. MARIAMMA JOHN,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO< WD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

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

section 68 wherein it was stated that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him/her was not satisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the sum so credited may be charged as income

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink charges involve

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink charges involve

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink charges involve

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink charges involve

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink charges involve

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink charges involve

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink charges involve

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink charges involve

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink charges involve

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink charges involve

M/S.KADUNA HOSPITALITY P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

68,157/- was different from that of solatium of Rs. 41,31.979/- and interest of Rs. 1,09,03,339/- (aggregating to Rs. 1,50,35,318/-) and therefore only the solatium and interest could be taxed as per the provisions of section 45(5)(b) read with section 145A(b) in the AY 2013-14 and compensation for acquisition

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

TDS being deducted by the assessee. Respectfully following the Supreme Court decision, I hold that there was no liability for the appellant to deduct tax at source u/s 195( 1) and accordingly the addition of Rs. 55,78,022/- is deleted.” 5. From the above order of the CIT(A) we observed that he has done a good reasoned order

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

68 of the Act. The AO also disallowed the advertisement expenses of Rs.4,41,080/- for the reason that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per sec. 194C of the Act. The AO also imposed interest u/s. 234A & 234B of the Act in the tax calculation sheet. The assessee challenged the above order before the CIT(A) and contended

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

68 of the Act. The AO also disallowed the advertisement expenses of Rs.4,41,080/- for the reason that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per sec. 194C of the Act. The AO also imposed interest u/s. 234A & 234B of the Act in the tax calculation sheet. The assessee challenged the above order before the CIT(A) and contended

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

68 of the Act. The AO also disallowed the advertisement expenses of Rs.4,41,080/- for the reason that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per sec. 194C of the Act. The AO also imposed interest u/s. 234A & 234B of the Act in the tax calculation sheet. The assessee challenged the above order before the CIT(A) and contended