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. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties 1 to 3

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. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties 1 to 3

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. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties 1 to 3

M/S. DEVICE DRIVEN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

3. On appeal, the first appellate authority concurred with the Assessing Officer with respect to the dis-allowance; but, however, allowed deduction under Section 10A. The Department approached the Tribunal and the assessee filed a cross objection. The Department's appeal was allowed and the Assessing Officer was directed to consider the deduction under Section 10A. The cross objection

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 under Section 194C of the Act. 3

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

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

2) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and in the facts of the case in holding that the amount of Rs.18,14,139/- paid/reimbursed by the assessee to M/s.Seven Ocean Shipping Company towards shipping charges attract TDS under section 194I of the Act? (3

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. POPULAR TRADERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

2) Omitted by the Finance Act, 1992 w.e.f. 1.6.1992. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply— (i) where the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the financial year by the person referred

POPULAR DEALERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

2) Omitted by the Finance Act, 1992 w.e.f. 1.6.1992. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply— (i) where the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the financial year by the person referred

POPULAR PRINTERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

2) Omitted by the Finance Act, 1992 w.e.f. 1.6.1992. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply— (i) where the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the financial year by the person referred

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

2. Did not the Tribunal err in deleting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source u/s.194H/194G of the Income Tax Act from the payment of commission to sub- agents? 3. Should not the Tribunal have considered the issues raised (declined to be considered in paragraph 12 of the order on merits

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. Heard Dr.K.P.Pradeep for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel Mr.Christopher Abraham for respondents. 3. The instant appeals raise the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the explanation offered by the appellant could have been considered positively under Sec.273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate

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