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.

179 results for “TDS”+ Section 10(34)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,190Mumbai2,022Bangalore1,040Chennai731Kolkata384Hyderabad309Indore280Pune269Ahmedabad256Chandigarh189Jaipur188Raipur187Cochin179Karnataka159Surat111Lucknow75Visakhapatnam60Nagpur57Rajkot55Cuttack52Amritsar35Jodhpur35Ranchi35Dehradun31Guwahati30Agra27Panaji18Telangana18Patna17Allahabad12SC11Kerala9Varanasi8Rajasthan5Calcutta5Jabalpur4Uttarakhand2Punjab & Haryana2J&K1

Key Topics

Limitation/Time-bar80Section 25022Section 4014Section 19211Section 2009Section 206C9TDS8Section 143(3)7Section 107Deduction

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

TDS reported in70 taxmann.com 45. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Bench is extracted as under: “10. In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that the interest on which the tax is sought to be deducted at source under section 194A of the Act is interest under section

Showing 1–20 of 179 · Page 1 of 9

...
6
Section 2635
Addition to Income4

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 Tax Act 1961 and no benefit of exemption of ex-gratia from income tax is intended in this scheme, there is no legal requirement for obtaining prior approval of Income Tax Department. 12. GENERAL CONDITIONS (i) …. (vii) viii

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)

10(6)(viii) of the Act itself shows that, but for the same, the receipt is taxable in India. We make it clear that all contentions are open to the assessee and, further, that we may not be construed as having expressed any final opinion in the matter, even as we have surely highlighted different aspects of the matter, both

MR. PREM MUKUNDAN ,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 790/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George George K. (Judicial Member), Ms. Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 192Section 199Section 250

section 199 of the IT Act, 1961 and 5 Shri Prem Mukundan Rule 37BA of the IT Rules, 1962 and proper mechanism is also provided under the Act and Rules. Thus, applying the ratio of the above judgement also, the assessee is entitled to get credit on TDS of Rs. 1,34,220/- which was deducted

SUBAIDA ABDURAHIMAN,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), CALICUT

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

ITA 342/COCH/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Nov 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Snr DR
Section 143(1)Section 205

section 205 of the Act”. The Division Bench further held that even though the TDS amount was not reflected in form 26AS, the department cannot make any demand on the assessee for the failure of the deductor to deposit the tax amount collected by him to the Central Government. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court also

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

TDS was duly deducted at the time of actual credit payment to individual parties 8. The AO grossly erred in making a disallowance of Rs.5,59,29,379/-towards Gas Turbine Overhauling charges u/s 31(i) of the Act. 8.1 The ld. Assessing Officer has erred in not considering the fact that repairs are done to preserve and maintain

KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 78/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kerala Shipping & Inalnd Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Navigtation Corporation C.R. Building, I.S. Pres Road 38/924-A, Udaya Nagar Road Kochi 682018 Vs. Gandhi Nagar Kochi 682020 [Pan: Aabck4818L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 199Section 263Section 69Section 69C

10. However, the learned PCIT disagreed with the contention of the assessee and held that as per the provision of section 199 r.w.r. 37BA of the Rules, the credit of TDS can be claimed only in the year to which the corresponding income is taxable. The amount of TDS on corresponding interest income of Rs. 64,17,463/-belong

PUSHPAGIRI MEDICAL SOCIETY,THIRUVALLA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 599/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeypushpagiri Medical Society Asst. Cit Thiruvalla 689101 (Exemptions) Vs. Pan – Aaatp2418H Cochin

For Appellant: Shri Abraham K Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 272B

10(23C) and u/s. 12A of the Act. We see no reason why it should be regarded as not so. True, the identity of an assessee under the Act is as per PAN (Pr. CIT v. I-Ven Interactive Ltd. [2019] 418 ITR662 (SC)) and an assessee having two PANs is itself a contradiction in terms. As explained by Shri

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 464/COCH/2025[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

34,577/- being the payment made to MPCMS for non deduction of tax at source. 5. The factual background leading to the above addition is that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the appellant company paid a sum of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- to MPCMS towards the services rendered by the MPCMS

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 465/COCH/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

34,577/- being the payment made to MPCMS for non deduction of tax at source. 5. The factual background leading to the above addition is that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the appellant company paid a sum of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- to MPCMS towards the services rendered by the MPCMS

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

34,577/- being the payment made to MPCMS for non deduction of tax at source. 5. The factual background leading to the above addition is that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the appellant company paid a sum of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- to MPCMS towards the services rendered by the MPCMS

CLINT MARTEL WILFRED,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL CIT (A) BENGALURU - 12, BENGALURU

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

ITA 59/COCH/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Clint Martel Wilfred Dcit (Interational Taxation) Clint Dale, Moolankuzhy Kochi Vs. Nazreth, Ernakulam 682002 [Pan: Abnpw6970H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148

TDS credit being given. Thereafter, the case was posted for hearings on 03.11.2022, 27.02.2023, 07.09.2023 and again 10.11.2023. The appellant was specifically requested to file the affidavit as above. However, no response has been received from the appellant, despite adequate opportunities being given. In the light of the above facts as well as the legal position discussed above, the addition

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

TDS amounts to Rs. 5,05,82,900/-. 3. Interest u/s.234B amounting to Rs. 5,81,36,331/ - only has been levied in the ordergenerated by the system.Interest u/s.234B amounting toRs.5,81,13,891/- only has been levied in the manual tax calculation sheet enclosed with the order. As per our working, interest u/s.234B amounts to Rs.5

M/S CEECON READYMIX CONCRETE PVT LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO TDS RANGE, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 1013/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 156Section 192Section 194JSection 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

10%, i.e., as applicable to professional income u/s.194J, at Rs.1.44 lakh and Rs.1.62 lakh for the two consecutive years respectively. The same were processed u/s. 200A vide Intimations dated 18.12.2017. As, however, the statements were filed in Form 26Q, i.e., as applicable to professional income, as against the correct form, i.e., as applicable to salary income (F/24Q), no credit

M/S CEECON READYMIX CONCRETE PVT LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO TDS RANGE, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 1014/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 156Section 192Section 194JSection 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

10%, i.e., as applicable to professional income u/s.194J, at Rs.1.44 lakh and Rs.1.62 lakh for the two consecutive years respectively. The same were processed u/s. 200A vide Intimations dated 18.12.2017. As, however, the statements were filed in Form 26Q, i.e., as applicable to professional income, as against the correct form, i.e., as applicable to salary income (F/24Q), no credit

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 989/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

10 993/C/2022 Q2/2019-20 16.07.2019 20.07.2019 26Q 51,600 - 51,600 11 994/C/2022 Q3/2019-20 16.07.2019 20.07.2019 26Q 33,200 - 33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 990/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

10 993/C/2022 Q2/2019-20 16.07.2019 20.07.2019 26Q 51,600 - 51,600 11 994/C/2022 Q3/2019-20 16.07.2019 20.07.2019 26Q 33,200 - 33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 987/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

10 993/C/2022 Q2/2019-20 16.07.2019 20.07.2019 26Q 51,600 - 51,600 11 994/C/2022 Q3/2019-20 16.07.2019 20.07.2019 26Q 33,200 - 33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 985/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

10 993/C/2022 Q2/2019-20 16.07.2019 20.07.2019 26Q 51,600 - 51,600 11 994/C/2022 Q3/2019-20 16.07.2019 20.07.2019 26Q 33,200 - 33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 988/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

10 993/C/2022 Q2/2019-20 16.07.2019 20.07.2019 26Q 51,600 - 51,600 11 994/C/2022 Q3/2019-20 16.07.2019 20.07.2019 26Q 33,200 - 33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned