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.

88 results for “TDS”+ Section 131clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi744Mumbai636Bangalore214Kolkata200Hyderabad186Chennai138Jaipur126Ahmedabad124Chandigarh104Karnataka94Cochin88Pune83Indore68Raipur59Visakhapatnam38Surat37Lucknow30Rajkot19Nagpur17Cuttack16Dehradun14Jodhpur11Guwahati9Patna9Panaji8Ranchi6Allahabad5Amritsar5Varanasi4SC3Agra3Calcutta3Telangana2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 250114Addition to Income23Section 2(24)(vi)8Section 488Capital Gains8Section 402

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin

Showing 1–20 of 88 · Page 1 of 5

17 Jan 2019
AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 354/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 355/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

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

TDS amount as income of the assessee in the assessment year 2011-12. We direct the Assessing Officer to I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 consider 8% of Rs.8.68 lakhs as income of the assessee as discussed earlier in para no. 12.8 of this order for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. This

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

TDS amount as income of the assessee in the assessment year 2011-12. We direct the Assessing Officer to I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 consider 8% of Rs.8.68 lakhs as income of the assessee as discussed earlier in para no. 12.8 of this order for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. This

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

TDS amount as income of the assessee in the assessment year 2011-12. We direct the Assessing Officer to I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 consider 8% of Rs.8.68 lakhs as income of the assessee as discussed earlier in para no. 12.8 of this order for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. This

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 308/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

TDS amount as income of the assessee in the assessment year 2011-12. We direct the Assessing Officer to I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 consider 8% of Rs.8.68 lakhs as income of the assessee as discussed earlier in para no. 12.8 of this order for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. This

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

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 55/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

TDS amount as income of the assessee in the assessment year 2011-12. We direct the Assessing Officer to I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 consider 8% of Rs.8.68 lakhs as income of the assessee as discussed earlier in para no. 12.8 of this order for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. This

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 30/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

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

TDS amount as income of the assessee in the assessment year 2011-12. We direct the Assessing Officer to I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 consider 8% of Rs.8.68 lakhs as income of the assessee as discussed earlier in para no. 12.8 of this order for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. This

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

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 54/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

TDS amount as income of the assessee in the assessment year 2011-12. We direct the Assessing Officer to I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 consider 8% of Rs.8.68 lakhs as income of the assessee as discussed earlier in para no. 12.8 of this order for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. This

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

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 238/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

TDS amount as income of the assessee in the assessment year 2011-12. We direct the Assessing Officer to I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 consider 8% of Rs.8.68 lakhs as income of the assessee as discussed earlier in para no. 12.8 of this order for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. This

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 29/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

TDS amount as income of the assessee in the assessment year 2011-12. We direct the Assessing Officer to I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 consider 8% of Rs.8.68 lakhs as income of the assessee as discussed earlier in para no. 12.8 of this order for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. This

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 306/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

TDS amount as income of the assessee in the assessment year 2011-12. We direct the Assessing Officer to I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 consider 8% of Rs.8.68 lakhs as income of the assessee as discussed earlier in para no. 12.8 of this order for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. This

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 310/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

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

TDS amount as income of the assessee in the assessment year 2011-12. We direct the Assessing Officer to I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 consider 8% of Rs.8.68 lakhs as income of the assessee as discussed earlier in para no. 12.8 of this order for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. This

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

TDS amount as income of the assessee in the assessment year 2011-12. We direct the Assessing Officer to I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 consider 8% of Rs.8.68 lakhs as income of the assessee as discussed earlier in para no. 12.8 of this order for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. This