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.

b) the delegation is in the regular course of business, or (c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections

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

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

b) the delegation is in the regular course of business, or (c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

b) the delegation is in the regular course of business, or (c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

b) the delegation is in the regular course of business, or (c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

b) the delegation is in the regular course of business, or (c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation." (17) It is true that S. 1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections

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

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

b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment impugned herein is against the principles laid down in Jagran Prakash Ltd. v. DCIT (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

POPULAR PRINTERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment impugned herein is against the principles laid down in Jagran Prakash Ltd. v. DCIT (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

POPULAR DEALERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment impugned herein is against the principles laid down in Jagran Prakash Ltd. v. DCIT (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

SUDARSANAN P.S vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1. Whether sub-clause (k) of Section 194(c) has applicability for the previous year 2006-07 (AY-2007-08). 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 under Section

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

1) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of Rs.18,14,139/- 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

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

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

B Order dated 04.06.2013, allowed the appeal and the Revenue filed I.T.A. No. 512/COCH/2013 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin. Through Annexure-C Order dated 25.10.2016 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the appeal. The appellant raises the following substantial questions of law in the instant appeal: I.T.A. Nos. 18, 13 & 29/2017 -9- “1. Whether, on the facts

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

1, that privacy is a fundamental right, won't the notice issued by Income Tax Officer call for the information pertaining to the account details of members of the appellant co-operative society under Section 133(6), becomes non-est in the eyes of law? Whether penalty orders under Section 272 A (2) (c) can be issued on the basis

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. Appellant had filed a return of income for the year in question declaring