BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

106 results for “TDS”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,656Mumbai1,613Bangalore1,021Chennai764Kolkata372Ahmedabad226Pune160Jaipur157Chandigarh156Hyderabad128Nagpur128Cochin106Lucknow82Raipur78Indore70Visakhapatnam52Karnataka37Rajkot31Surat30Cuttack27Jodhpur26Guwahati24Amritsar23Dehradun17Patna13Agra12Telangana12Ranchi11SC9Kerala8Rajasthan7Himachal Pradesh6Jabalpur6Panaji6Varanasi4Punjab & Haryana3Allahabad3J&K2Calcutta2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 250118Section 206C35TDS33Section 197A30Section 1027Deduction22Addition to Income21Section 143(3)20Exemption19Section 80P

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT,TDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1061/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 194ASection 201Section 297

TDS was not Interest deduction was not made made Paid 1 AWHPB7056L G 4,19,988 Form 15H submitted. No 41,999/- BHASKARAN proof submitted claiming exemption

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD vs. THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, PALAKKAD

Showing 1–20 of 106 · Page 1 of 6

18
Section 4017
Section 20116
ITA 798/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.N.R.Neelakandan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR &
Section 194A(3)(v)Section 250Section 40Section 40a

TDS such as interest paid to member societies amounting to Rs.152.37 crores, interest paid to exempted institutions amounting to Rs.15.9

IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY HOSPITAL,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 342/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Prasanth Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Senior DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and also claimed a refund of TDS amount of Rs.1,22,133/-. The assessee

DJ AMUSEMENTS,8/58 8/58 ,CHATHANKANDATH HOUSE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 758/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Hon’Ble Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.758/Coch/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dj Amusements, The Income Tax Officer, Mankara P.O, Vs. Ward-1 & Tps, Palakkad – 678 614. Palakkad. Kerala Pan: Aahfd 2211P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sivadas Chettoor, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Smt Leena Lal, Snr Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ():

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chettoor, C.A ""For Respondent: Smt Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 139

TDS is required to be deducted on payments made to local authorities whose income is exempt under Section 10 and who are not required

NELLIPARAMBIL GOPALAN GANGADEVI,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO WARD 1, ALUVA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 996/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 147

TDS As the proposed scheme does not comply with Rule 10(10C) of Income Tax Act 1961 and no benefit of exemption

KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 223/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 154Section 239Section 80A

exemption u/s. 10(23AAA) of the Act. However, the appellant had filed an appeal before the CIT(A) contesting that the appellant was not granted credit for TDS

HEALTH CARE FOUNDATION,KOZHIKODE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,EXEMPTION WARD ,KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 813/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2021-22 Health Care Foundation .......... Appellant No. 8 Unnikulam P.O., Poonoor Kozhikode 673574 [Pan: Aaath8790C] Vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Somy Cheriyan, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Somy Cheriyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 154

exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The said return of income was processed by the CPC vide order 2 Health Care Foundation 12.01.2023 granting short credits for TDS

KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , RANGE -1 , KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 587/COCH/2024[A.Y 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited Athani Aluva Adit, Range-1 Vs. Ernakulam Kochi Kerala 683 585 Pan No : Aaack9968Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Mrs. Remya S. Menon, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.4.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064318699(1) For The Ay 2011-12 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Mrs. Remya S. Menon, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 250Section 40a

exempt income has been estimated under the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act and Rs.1,02,500/- has been disallowed. ii. Expenditure on which TDS

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 724/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS. The AO also considered whether the said payments would fall under the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. If the said payment would fall u/s. 9(1)(vii), whether the said payments are eligible for exemption

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 723/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS. The AO also considered whether the said payments would fall under the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. If the said payment would fall u/s. 9(1)(vii), whether the said payments are eligible for exemption

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 721/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS. The AO also considered whether the said payments would fall under the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. If the said payment would fall u/s. 9(1)(vii), whether the said payments are eligible for exemption

ELAVANCHALIL ABDUL BASHEER,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 310/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer .......... Appellant Oittannmakm, Koduvally, Kozhikode 673572 [Pan: Bbwpb4939D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Agriculture’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 21.12.2020 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,60,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhokode

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

exempt from tax in respect of the property situated at Survey No. 90/03, Thrikaipetta Village, Meppadi, Wayanad. The AO noted that the said property was sold to 3 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer Vincentian Society for a consideration of Rs. 4,64,10,000/- on which TDS

LAXMI MEGHAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KANHANGAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, KANNUR, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 656/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2012-13 M/S. Laxmi Meghan Educational Trust, Ito (Exemptions), Vs. Kmc W1/1504, Surgicare Centre & Hospital, Kannur – 670 006. Kasargode District, Kerala. Pan :Aaatl8244M Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Anil D Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

exemption u/s. 10 (23C) (iii ad) as prayed for by the assessee Trust. 5. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in making a disallowance of Rs. 1,66,325/-u/s. 40(ia) against advertising payments, without looking into the law and facts of the case. TDS

TRESA JOLLY,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms.V.Swarnalatha, Senior DR
Section 143(2)Section 80C

TDS amount deducted by the employer. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny by CASS and notice u/s.143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) was issued, for which the assessee furnished copy of acknowledgement for filing revised return and the annexure filed along with the return and declared her residential status as resident and withdrew

PALLATH NAFEESA,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, TIRUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee allowed

ITA 118/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Pallath Nafeesa The Income Tax Officer Poolakkodan House Tirur Athirumada, Punnathala Vs. Tirur, Malappuram 676552 [Pan: Alipn9300R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Paulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 10(37)Section 145ASection 194ASection 197Section 28Section 34Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

exempted u/s 10(37) of the Actor chargeable to tax as income from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the Act. In this regard we note that the issue on hand is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case

IFTHIKAR KARUPPAMVEETIL ABDUL RAHMAN,CHAVAKKAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 119/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 147Section 56Section 57

TDS rate from 1% to 5% albeit in the Finance Bill 2019 (supra). Having carefully gone through the contents while moving the Bill, I 8 ITA.No.119/COCH./2024 find that the Govt. has taken note of this problem by observing "..... Under section under section 194DA of the Act, a person is obliged to deduct tax at source, if it pays

INDIA GATEWAY TERMINAL PRIVATE LIMITED,ICTT, VALLARPADAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 545/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Remya S. Menon, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 195Section 40

TDS amount in respect of the above sum. The AO also made a disallowance of Rs. 42,58,027/- u/s. 14A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), challenging the above additions made on the ground that in respect of payment of Rs. 2,93,59,617/- there was no liability to deduction

INDIA GATEWAY TERMINAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,ICTT, VALLARPADAM vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE 1(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 546/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Remya S. Menon, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 195Section 40

TDS amount in respect of the above sum. The AO also made a disallowance of Rs. 42,58,027/- u/s. 14A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), challenging the above additions made on the ground that in respect of payment of Rs. 2,93,59,617/- there was no liability to deduction

SHRI SURESH GEORGE,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ADIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3, THIRUVANATHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 794/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysuresh George Asstt. Director Of Income Tax Kurichyiel House International Taxation Payippad, Harippad Vs. Thiruvananthapuram Alappuzha 690 556 [Pan:Affpg5853B]

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194JSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS certificate/s would, for example, notwithstanding the payment being made by another, issued by the employer only, and tax deducted deposited under his TAN, while in the instant case, it is the name and TAN (MUMB 08953A) of BSM that is stated (in the asseseee’s return) in respect of the Employer! Why? That apart, payment of remuneration

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1000/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

TDS has explained before the AO. As per various judicial pronouncements, inadvertent omission of one income will not attract penalty u/s 271 (1) (c). Every omission/concealment does not attract the rigour of s. 271(1)(c). It must be deliberate and intentional Page 4 of 7 being in the knowledge of the assessee so as to evade payment