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) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard, to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees' case also. The further argument

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

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

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard, to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees' case also. The further argument

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

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

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard, to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees' case also. The further argument

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) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard, to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees' case also. The further argument

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. Whether the addition of Rs.8,86,790/- made by the assessing officer as affirmed

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) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate

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

8:- 12. A glance at the history of Section 41 will reveal the purpose behind the enactment of this provision. Section 41(1) of the 1961 Act corresponds to Section 10(2)(A) of the Income Tax Act of 1922. In the decision in British Mexican Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Jackson (1932) 16 TC 570 (HL), it was held that

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

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

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

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

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