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

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

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

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

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

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. 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

7' of the Kerala High Court Act, instead of having the case sent back to the same/appropriate Bench for further consideration, after answering the reference. In view of our declaration that non- remittance of tax deducted at source as in the instant case (which comes under Section 194C of Chapter XVIIB of the Act) is not covered by Section 271C

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

TDS) [(2010) 321 ITR 31 (Karn)] the Karnataka High Court held that the effect of the Supreme Court decision in Ishikawajima had not been obliterated. Insofar as how the explanation has to be construed, reliance has been placed on Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. v. CIT [(2015) 279 ITR 310 (SC)]. 5. Section 195 casts a liability on the person

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

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. A mere provision of expenditure is not allowable as expenditure inasmuch as the assessee has not suffered actual expenditure on account of the said commission payable to the agents. The conclusion and reasoning of the Assessing Officer was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal independently examined the tenability

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.

7. The additions to the income of the trustees by way of excess consideration received for the sale of the rubber plantation was made in relation to Jose Thomas, Gracy Babu and Reena Jose for the assessment years 2009-10 [for all three] and 2010-11 [for Jose Thomas and Gracy Babu]. While the Assessing Authority and the First Appellate

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

7. The additions to the income of the trustees by way of excess consideration received for the sale of the rubber plantation was made in relation to Jose Thomas, Gracy Babu and Reena Jose for the assessment years 2009-10 [for all three] and 2010-11 [for Jose Thomas and Gracy Babu]. While the Assessing Authority and the First Appellate

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

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

7. The additions to the income of the trustees by way of excess consideration received for the sale of the rubber plantation was made in relation to Jose Thomas, Gracy Babu and Reena Jose for the assessment years 2009-10 [for all three] and 2010-11 [for Jose Thomas and Gracy Babu]. While the Assessing Authority and the First Appellate

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

7. The additions to the income of the trustees by way of excess consideration received for the sale of the rubber plantation was made in relation to Jose Thomas, Gracy Babu and Reena Jose for the assessment years 2009-10 [for all three] and 2010-11 [for Jose Thomas and Gracy Babu]. While the Assessing Authority and the First Appellate

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

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

7. The additions to the income of the trustees by way of excess consideration received for the sale of the rubber plantation was made in relation to Jose Thomas, Gracy Babu and Reena Jose for the assessment years 2009-10 [for all three] and 2010-11 [for Jose Thomas and Gracy Babu]. While the Assessing Authority and the First Appellate

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

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

TDS) ALAPPUZHA-688 001 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 DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

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

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

TDS) ALAPPUZHA-688 001 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 DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

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

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

TDS) ALAPPUZHA-688 001 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 DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

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

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

TDS) ALAPPUZHA-688 001 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 DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING