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.

572 results for “TDS”+ Section 10clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,982Mumbai4,974Bangalore2,432Chennai1,881Kolkata1,349Pune1,300Ahmedabad997Hyderabad947Indore728Jaipur609Cochin572Chandigarh494Raipur454Karnataka326Nagpur321Visakhapatnam307Surat286Cuttack272Rajkot219Lucknow174Amritsar142Jabalpur115Ranchi108Jodhpur103Dehradun84Agra75Guwahati69Patna66Panaji66Allahabad62Telangana49SC22Varanasi19Kerala15Calcutta13Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Punjab & Haryana4Orissa3Uttarakhand3J&K3Bombay1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

TDS74Section 234E57Section 4036Section 20134Limitation/Time-bar34Section 201(1)33Deduction33Section 25029Section 19227Section 143(3)

THE ITO (TDS), KOTTAYAM vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM

ITA 555/COCH/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10Section 10(10)(iii)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

10(10AA)(ii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the arguments of the assessee that the assessee is covered under the definition of “State”. According to the Ld. AR, section 192(2A) of the Income Tax Act, for TDS

THE ITO (TDS), KOTTAYAM vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM

ITA 556/COCH/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin

Showing 1–20 of 572 · Page 1 of 29

...
21
Section 200A21
Disallowance19
14 May 2019
AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10Section 10(10)(iii)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

10(10AA)(ii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the arguments of the assessee that the assessee is covered under the definition of “State”. According to the Ld. AR, section 192(2A) of the Income Tax Act, for TDS

THE ITO, WARD-2(1), TVM, TVM vs. SMT.G.S.LEKHA, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed and the Cross

ITA 194/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.194/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 10(37)Section 2(14)(iii)

TDS) (187 Taxman 1). Thus, he brought to tax a sum of Rs.1,65,31,119/- as long term capital gain. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that section 10

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

sections 12AA and 10(23C) (vi). 3. The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in rejecting the prayer u/s. 10(23C) (iii ad) stating that " There are no documents on record to show that during the financial year under consideration, the assessee trust existed solely for educational propose and not for purposes of profit and that the aggregate annual receipts

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

section 10(10C) compliant: “10. INCOME TAX-TDS As the proposed scheme does not comply with Rule 10(10C) of Income

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 210/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

TDS on the salary paid to his employees. As per Section 192 of the Act every person responsible for ITA Nos. 207 to 212/Coch/2021 10

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 208/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

TDS on the salary paid to his employees. As per Section 192 of the Act every person responsible for ITA Nos. 207 to 212/Coch/2021 10

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 209/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

TDS on the salary paid to his employees. As per Section 192 of the Act every person responsible for ITA Nos. 207 to 212/Coch/2021 10

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 207/COCH/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

TDS on the salary paid to his employees. As per Section 192 of the Act every person responsible for ITA Nos. 207 to 212/Coch/2021 10

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 212/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

TDS on the salary paid to his employees. As per Section 192 of the Act every person responsible for ITA Nos. 207 to 212/Coch/2021 10

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 211/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

TDS on the salary paid to his employees. As per Section 192 of the Act every person responsible for ITA Nos. 207 to 212/Coch/2021 10

M/S.MALAYALAM COMMUNICATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)

TDS to be made on payments to production houses and not to the individuals as in the case of assessee. Taking into account all the above, the CIT(A) was of the considered opinion that the provisions of section 194J alone are applicable to the assessee and thereby, the assessee ought to have deducted the tax at 10

ITO, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.SOUTHERN MINERAL INDUSTRIES,, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 370/COCH/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

Section 194CSection 194ISection 201

Section applicable Amount paid without TDS. Financial year 05-06 (Rs.) Sieving charges 1. 194C 14,99,377 2. Drying charges 194C 14,97,696 3. Loading charges 914C 10

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 35/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

10(3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)”. 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 34/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

10(3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)”. 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 213/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

10(3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)”. 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 210/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

10(3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)”. 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 28/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

10(3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)”. 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 31/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

10(3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)”. 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 32/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

10(3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)”. 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining