THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)". 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)". 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

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.

3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)". 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

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

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

3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)". 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

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 194I of the Act? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income

POPULAR DEALERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

TDS) 345 ITR 288? (c) Ought not the learned Tribunal have held that Section 201 is found on the instance when the deductee/payee fails to pay the tax on the payment made by the deductor or fails to show the same in the return filed? (d) Ought not the learned Tribunal have held that the assessing authority passed a vague

POPULAR PRINTERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

TDS) 345 ITR 288? (c) Ought not the learned Tribunal have held that Section 201 is found on the instance when the deductee/payee fails to pay the tax on the payment made by the deductor or fails to show the same in the return filed? (d) Ought not the learned Tribunal have held that the assessing authority passed a vague

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

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

TDS) 345 ITR 288? (c) Ought not the learned Tribunal have held that Section 201 is found on the instance when the deductee/payee fails to pay the tax on the payment made by the deductor or fails to show the same in the return filed? (d) Ought not the learned Tribunal have held that the assessing authority passed a vague

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

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

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

TDS has paid the amount to the assessee towards prize incentive etc. The assessee has collected the amount and claims to have made over the incentive to the end retailers. Section 194G, as rightly held by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Tribunal, is not attracted to the instant payment inasmuch as assessee is not under obligation

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

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

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 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. Substantial question nos. (a) and (b) read as follows: I.T.A. No. 249/2015 -3- “a) Whether

CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)

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

3, SANKARATHIL BUILDINGS, M.C.ROAD, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA- 689 501, BY ADVS. V.ABRAHAM MARKOS, SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS, SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENT/S: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CPC GHAZIABAD-201 301 SC CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 03.09.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.67/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME

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

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

3, SANKARATHIL BUILDINGS, M.C.ROAD, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA- 689 501, BY ADVS. V.ABRAHAM MARKOS, SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS, SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENT/S: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CPC GHAZIABAD-201 301 SC CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 03.09.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.67/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME

CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)

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

3, SANKARATHIL BUILDINGS, M.C.ROAD, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA- 689 501, BY ADVS. V.ABRAHAM MARKOS, SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS, SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENT/S: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CPC GHAZIABAD-201 301 SC CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 03.09.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.67/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME

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

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

3, SANKARATHIL BUILDINGS, M.C.ROAD, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA- 689 501, BY ADVS. V.ABRAHAM MARKOS, SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS, SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENT/S: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CPC GHAZIABAD-201 301 SC CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 03.09.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.67/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME

CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS),

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

3, SANKARATHIL BUILDINGS, M.C.ROAD, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA- 689 501, BY ADVS. V.ABRAHAM MARKOS, SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS, SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENT/S: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CPC GHAZIABAD-201 301 SC CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 03.09.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.67/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME

CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS),

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

3, SANKARATHIL BUILDINGS, M.C.ROAD, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA- 689 501, BY ADVS. V.ABRAHAM MARKOS, SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS, SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENT/S: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CPC GHAZIABAD-201 301 SC CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 03.09.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.67/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME