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 Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee/appellant took the machinery (ship) on lease and paid hire charges for the same and therefore the provisions of section 194I are attracted? Is not such a finding illegal, erroneous

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

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

5. The circumstances relevant for disposing of the appeal are noted thus: The appeal relates to the Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee was called upon by the Income Tax Officer (TDS) Kottayam under Section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

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

5. The assessee filed I.T.A. No. 79/KTM/CIT(A)-IV/2010- 11 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ernakulam. The CIT (Appeals), through Annexure-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

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

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

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

5. The following questions of law arise for consideration in these appeals: (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has not the Tribunal erred in holding that ITA.209/2019, ITA.210/2019, ITA.212/2019, ITA.220/2019, ITA.221/2019, ITA.222/2019, ITA.224/2019, ITA.226/2019, ITA.227/2019, ITA.230/2019, ITA.233/2019 & ITA.234/2019 15 burden of proof lies on the appellant in terms of the first proviso to Section

POPULAR PRINTERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

5. The following questions of law arise for consideration in these appeals: (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has not the Tribunal erred in holding that ITA.209/2019, ITA.210/2019, ITA.212/2019, ITA.220/2019, ITA.221/2019, ITA.222/2019, ITA.224/2019, ITA.226/2019, ITA.227/2019, ITA.230/2019, ITA.233/2019 & ITA.234/2019 15 burden of proof lies on the appellant in terms of the first proviso to Section

POPULAR DEALERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

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

5. The following questions of law arise for consideration in these appeals: (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has not the Tribunal erred in holding that ITA.209/2019, ITA.210/2019, ITA.212/2019, ITA.220/2019, ITA.221/2019, ITA.222/2019, ITA.224/2019, ITA.226/2019, ITA.227/2019, ITA.230/2019, ITA.233/2019 & ITA.234/2019 15 burden of proof lies on the appellant in terms of the first proviso to Section

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

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

5. Substantial question no.(c) reads thus: “c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in confirming the disallowance of the amount of Rs. 1,03,92,000/- being year-end provision for payment of commission as an unascertained liability? 5.1 The assessee for the Assessment Year 2009-10 booked an expenditure

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

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 considered by the Full Bench in Lakshadweep Development Corporation Ltd supra which reads thus: “The pertinent question sought to be answered

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

sections however embody nothing more or less than the principles which have been applied to all trusts in all countries. The principle of the rule I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 25 :: against delegation with which we are concerned in the present case, is clear; a fiduciary relationship having been created, it is against

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

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

sections however embody nothing more or less than the principles which have been applied to all trusts in all countries. The principle of the rule I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 25 :: against delegation with which we are concerned in the present case, is clear; a fiduciary relationship having been created, it is against

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.

sections however embody nothing more or less than the principles which have been applied to all trusts in all countries. The principle of the rule I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 25 :: against delegation with which we are concerned in the present case, is clear; a fiduciary relationship having been created, it is against

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

sections however embody nothing more or less than the principles which have been applied to all trusts in all countries. The principle of the rule I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 25 :: against delegation with which we are concerned in the present case, is clear; a fiduciary relationship having been created, it is against

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

sections however embody nothing more or less than the principles which have been applied to all trusts in all countries. The principle of the rule I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 25 :: against delegation with which we are concerned in the present case, is clear; a fiduciary relationship having been created, it is against