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.

section 13(2)(g). It was submitted that the payments were made to offset the cost of construction of building done by the erstwhile Trustees and hence, there was no diversion. 19.3 The Ld. AR submitted that the Trust did not claim Rs. 14.55 crores as expenditure or application and hence, the same cannot be added to income

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

section 13(2)(g). It was submitted that the payments were made to offset the cost of construction of building done by the erstwhile Trustees and hence, there was no diversion. 19.3 The Ld. AR submitted that the Trust did not claim Rs. 14.55 crores as expenditure or application and hence, the same cannot be added to income

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

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

section 13(2)(g). It was submitted that the payments were made to offset the cost of construction of building done by the erstwhile Trustees and hence, there was no diversion. 19.3 The Ld. AR submitted that the Trust did not claim Rs. 14.55 crores as expenditure or application and hence, the same cannot be added to income

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

section 13(2)(g). It was submitted that the payments were made to offset the cost of construction of building done by the erstwhile Trustees and hence, there was no diversion. 19.3 The Ld. AR submitted that the Trust did not claim Rs. 14.55 crores as expenditure or application and hence, the same cannot be added to income

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) of the Act and contends that from the nature of lottery ticket

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

TDS and interest paid, was written back by the assessee into its accounts, on account of the cessation of liability. To state in figures, the assessee had written back Rs.30,68,152/- instead of Rs.53,71,650/-. 3. In the return filed for the AY 1995-96, assessee had thus written back only Rs.30,68,152/- under Section

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. 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. POPULAR TRADERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

TDS), ALAPPUZHA - 688 011. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC, IT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.06.2020, ALONG WITH ITA.209/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA.209/2019, ITA.210/2019, ITA.212/2019, ITA.220/2019, ITA.221/2019, ITA.222/2019, ITA.224/2019, ITA.226/2019, ITA.227/2019, ITA.230/2019, ITA.233/2019 & ITA.234/2019 13 JUDGMENT Dated this the 9th day of June, 2020 T.R.RAVI, J. Three different

POPULAR DEALERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

TDS), ALAPPUZHA - 688 011. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC, IT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.06.2020, ALONG WITH ITA.209/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA.209/2019, ITA.210/2019, ITA.212/2019, ITA.220/2019, ITA.221/2019, ITA.222/2019, ITA.224/2019, ITA.226/2019, ITA.227/2019, ITA.230/2019, ITA.233/2019 & ITA.234/2019 13 JUDGMENT Dated this the 9th day of June, 2020 T.R.RAVI, J. Three different

POPULAR PRINTERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

TDS), ALAPPUZHA - 688 011. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC, IT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.06.2020, ALONG WITH ITA.209/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA.209/2019, ITA.210/2019, ITA.212/2019, ITA.220/2019, ITA.221/2019, ITA.222/2019, ITA.224/2019, ITA.226/2019, ITA.227/2019, ITA.230/2019, ITA.233/2019 & ITA.234/2019 13 JUDGMENT Dated this the 9th day of June, 2020 T.R.RAVI, J. Three different

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