THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

14. That being so, it I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 23 :: cannot be treated as a casual or non-recurring receipt under section 10(3) and be subjected to tax under section 56. The argument of the appellant that even if the income cannot be chargeable under section 45, because of the inapplicability

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

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

14. That being so, it I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 23 :: cannot be treated as a casual or non-recurring receipt under section 10(3) and be subjected to tax under section 56. The argument of the appellant that even if the income cannot be chargeable under section 45, because of the inapplicability

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

14. That being so, it I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 23 :: cannot be treated as a casual or non-recurring receipt under section 10(3) and be subjected to tax under section 56. The argument of the appellant that even if the income cannot be chargeable under section 45, because of the inapplicability

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

14. That being so, it I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 23 :: cannot be treated as a casual or non-recurring receipt under section 10(3) and be subjected to tax under section 56. The argument of the appellant that even if the income cannot be chargeable under section 45, because of the inapplicability

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

14,139/- under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act holding that the amount paid towards shipping charges attract TDS under section 194(i) of the Act and that the assessee has failed to make TDS on the said payment. ITA No.23/2021 -:4:- (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

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

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

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