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

4. Sri.Raja Kannan, learned Counsel for the appellant, refers to Section 9(1)(vii) and Section 195 of the Act. It is the specific case of the appellant-assessee that the recipient of the commission is a non-resident, not taxable under the Act of 1961. It is admitted that the non-resident was also a Director of the assessee

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

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

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

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

4. Assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 16 :: under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

4. Assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 16 :: under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

4. Assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 16 :: under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

4. Assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 16 :: under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose

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.

4. Assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 16 :: under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose

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. POPULAR TRADERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

4. The main contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the Assessing Authority ought to have confirmed the failure of the 'payee-assessee' to pay the tax directly as per Section 191 of the Income-tax Act, before declaring the 'deductor-assessee' as an assessee-in-default under Section 201. It was also contended that the authorities have

POPULAR DEALERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

4. The main contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the Assessing Authority ought to have confirmed the failure of the 'payee-assessee' to pay the tax directly as per Section 191 of the Income-tax Act, before declaring the 'deductor-assessee' as an assessee-in-default under Section 201. It was also contended that the authorities have

POPULAR PRINTERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

4. The main contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the Assessing Authority ought to have confirmed the failure of the 'payee-assessee' to pay the tax directly as per Section 191 of the Income-tax Act, before declaring the 'deductor-assessee' as an assessee-in-default under Section 201. It was also contended that the authorities have

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

4. Dr.K.P Pradeep relying on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Lakshadweep Development Corporation Ltd v. Additional Commissioner of Income tax (TDS)1 argues that the questions framed in the instant tax appeals are no more res integra and are covered in favour of the appellant/assessee. To bring home his arguments, he invites our attention to the question

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

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

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the assessee and the Revenue would state that the questions covered by (a) and (b) are similar to the questions raised by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in ITA No.26/2013. This Court vide order dated 29.07.2021 has answered the said questions against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue

CSB BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

TDS), ALAPPUZHA-688001. ITA Nos. 29, 15, 17, 33, 39 & 45/2020 -11- BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 03.09.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.29/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

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

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

TDS), ALAPPUZHA-688001. ITA Nos. 29, 15, 17, 33, 39 & 45/2020 -11- BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 03.09.2021, ALONG WITH ITA.29/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING