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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Section 10A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore223Delhi199Mumbai173Chennai49Pune40Raipur38Kolkata33Hyderabad33Ahmedabad26Jaipur12Karnataka6Nagpur5Cochin5Cuttack4Surat4Rajkot4Indore4Varanasi2Visakhapatnam1Allahabad1Amritsar1Guwahati1Kerala1Panaji1Patna1Telangana1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 1926Section 406Section 10B5Section 104Section 144C(5)4Exemption3TDS3Disallowance3Section 201(1)2Section 201

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 475/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act. Further, there was a payment of rent for which the provisions of section 194-I is applicable. Hence it cannot be considered as reimbursement of expenditure. Thus, the payments so made are covered by the provisions of section 194J/194I, as may be applicable in the present case. 12. Coming

2
Section 10(10)(iii)2
Natural Justice2

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 134/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T.Act. Further, there was a payment of rent for which the provisions of section 194-I is applicable. Hence it cannot be considered as reimbursement of expenditure. Thus, the payments so made are covered by the provisions of section 194J/194I, as may be applicable in the present case. 12. Coming

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 448/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 10B(3)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 195(6)Section 40

TDS being deducted by the assessee. Respectfully following the Supreme Court decision, I hold that there was no liability for the appellant to deduct tax at source u/s 195( 1) and accordingly the addition of Rs. 55,78,022/- is deleted.” 5. From the above order of the CIT(A) we observed that he has done a good reasoned order

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)

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the demand raised u/s 201(1) & u/s 201 (1A) of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.59,65,182/-. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that university employees were to be considered as government employees and were therefore eligible for exemptions under sections

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

ITA 556/COCH/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2019AY 2017-18

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

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

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the demand raised u/s 201(1) & u/s 201 (1A) of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.59,65,182/-. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that university employees were to be considered as government employees and were therefore eligible for exemptions under sections