THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard, to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees' case also. The further argument

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.

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard, to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees' case also. The further argument

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard, to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees' case also. The further argument

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

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

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard, to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees' case also. The further argument

SUDARSANAN P.S vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in restoring the addition of Rs.32,88,677/- made by the assessing officer on account of the dis- allowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-payment of TDS

M/S.INDIA COFFEE BOARD WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

TDS was not applied on rent payments made totalling Rs.1,81,247/- and the latter amount had not been disallowed and assessed under Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s.194J; (b) Interest incomes received from the assessee's members totalling Rs.16,93,3334/- was omitted to be taxed”. 2

ALL KOSHYS ALL SPICES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed as above

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

TDS under section 194(c) of the Act and hence the said amount was disallowed under section 40(a)(1a) of the Act. 2

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

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

TDS should have been deducted and Section 194G is attracted in all fours. Alternatively, in the admitted fact situation of the subject assessment Section 194H is attracted. 7. Advocate Anil Sivaraman invites our attention to the explanation given by the assessee to the notice under Section 143(2

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

TDS quarterly statement etc for the Financial Years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014- 15. The assessee claims to have furnished reply to the communication received under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act (for short ‘the Act’). The Income Tax Officer, not satisfied with the reply given by the assessee, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 272A(2

M/S.CARBON AND CHEMICALS (INDIA) LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KOCHI

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

section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act to be assessed as income is Rs.53,71,650/- or Rs.30,68,152/- is not a debatable issue and can be the subject matter of adjustment under sec.143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case was the Tribunal right in holding that

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

2) of Sec.115-O(coming under Chapter XIID) or covered by the 'second proviso' to Section 194B (coming under Chapter XVIIB) alone would constitute an instance where penalty can be imposed in terms of Section 271C(1)(b) of the Act. Since there is no obscurity in the above provision, it is not for the Court to read something more into

CSB BANK LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)

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

TDS), ALAPPUZHA-688001. ITA Nos. 29, 15, 17, 33, 39 & 45/2020 -11- BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 03.09.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.29/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

CSB BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

TDS), ALAPPUZHA-688001. ITA Nos. 29, 15, 17, 33, 39 & 45/2020 -11- BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 03.09.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.29/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

POPULAR PRINTERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

2. The assessees have been accepting loans in the form of deposits and paying interest on such borrowings. Even though the assesses were required to deduct tax on the interest paid under Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, they have failed to do so. The Assessing Officer proceeded to assess the appellants treating them as assessees in default under

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

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

2. The assessees have been accepting loans in the form of deposits and paying interest on such borrowings. Even though the assesses were required to deduct tax on the interest paid under Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, they have failed to do so. The Assessing Officer proceeded to assess the appellants treating them as assessees in default under

POPULAR DEALERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

2. The assessees have been accepting loans in the form of deposits and paying interest on such borrowings. Even though the assesses were required to deduct tax on the interest paid under Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, they have failed to do so. The Assessing Officer proceeded to assess the appellants treating them as assessees in default under

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

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

2. M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd Kochi/Assessee is the appellant. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ernakulam/Revenue is the respondent. 3. The assessee assails the order dated 21.11.2014 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal) Cochin Bench in IT(TP)A No.02/Coch/2014. The issues canvassed in the appeal relate to the return filed by the assessee