THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT.GRACY BABU,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

c). The amount paid to the erstwhile trustees were for the construction of infrastructure. It was submitted that no benefit arises to the erstwhile trustees through the payment of Rs. 14,54,59,169/- made to them by the Trust. Such benefit would have been there, if it was diversion of Trust funds by virtue of section 13(2

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

c). The amount paid to the erstwhile trustees were for the construction of infrastructure. It was submitted that no benefit arises to the erstwhile trustees through the payment of Rs. 14,54,59,169/- made to them by the Trust. Such benefit would have been there, if it was diversion of Trust funds by virtue of section 13(2

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. GRACY BABU,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

c). The amount paid to the erstwhile trustees were for the construction of infrastructure. It was submitted that no benefit arises to the erstwhile trustees through the payment of Rs. 14,54,59,169/- made to them by the Trust. Such benefit would have been there, if it was diversion of Trust funds by virtue of section 13(2

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

c). The amount paid to the erstwhile trustees were for the construction of infrastructure. It was submitted that no benefit arises to the erstwhile trustees through the payment of Rs. 14,54,59,169/- made to them by the Trust. Such benefit would have been there, if it was diversion of Trust funds by virtue of section 13(2

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

C. The arguments now made in support of the respective cases by the learned counsel are I.T.A. Nos. 18, 13 & 29/2017 -10- similar to the arguments made before the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Revenue contends that from the nature of admitted circumstances and the conduct of lottery business, the assessee, though a Stockist or wholesale dealer of lottery

KADUTHURUTHY REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.4061 vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

13 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER ITA 308/2020 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S: KADUTHURUTHY REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.4061 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADUTHURUTHY P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENT/S: THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), 3RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM OTHER PRESENT

M/S. POPULAR TRADERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

13 JUDGMENT Dated this the 9th day of June, 2020 T.R.RAVI, J. Three different assessees, which are partnership firms, have filed the appeals against a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The orders relate to the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. A common question is raised in all these appeals and hence they

POPULAR DEALERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

13 JUDGMENT Dated this the 9th day of June, 2020 T.R.RAVI, J. Three different assessees, which are partnership firms, have filed the appeals against a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The orders relate to the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. A common question is raised in all these appeals and hence they

POPULAR PRINTERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

13 JUDGMENT Dated this the 9th day of June, 2020 T.R.RAVI, J. Three different assessees, which are partnership firms, have filed the appeals against a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The orders relate to the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. A common question is raised in all these appeals and hence they

M/S. SUBSCRIBERS CHITS (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand allowed accordingly

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

13(1), PARAYIL LANE, POTHOLE ROAD, THRISSUR-680 004. BY ADV. DR.K.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT/S: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AYKAR BHAVAN, C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.03.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.26/2016, ITA.52/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE

M/S. APPOLLO TYRES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

TDS, adhoc deduction of tax on estimated provision was not possible. The assessee cannot be allowed to take such contradictory stand. It is also a fact that the assessee has not been able to substantiate as to how the said provision was only in respect of the service providers for which revenue was recognized for relevant year