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.

64 results for “TDS”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai978Delhi754Bangalore336Kolkata283Chennai185Ahmedabad170Jaipur127Karnataka117Raipur107Pune97Indore86Chandigarh72Cochin64Surat61Hyderabad55Visakhapatnam44Lucknow34Rajkot22Agra20Nagpur20Cuttack18Amritsar17Patna14Guwahati14Dehradun9Varanasi7Ranchi6Panaji6Allahabad4Telangana3Jabalpur3Jodhpur2SC2Calcutta1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 250117Section 4016Section 194A7Section 143(3)6Section 133(6)6TDS6Addition to Income6Deduction5Section 1484Section 147

M/S.KADUTHURUTHY REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE JT IT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 308/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathankaduthuruthy Regional Service Joint Commissioner Of Co-Op Bank Ltd. Income Tax (Tds) Vs. Kaduthuruthuy P.O. Trivandrum Kottayam Pan – Aaajk0315Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. J.M. Jamuna Devi
Section 133Section 133(6)Section 194A

TDS) is not an authority to invoke provision under the said section. C. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the information under Section 133(6

MR.THOMAS DANIEL,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4

3
Section 194C3
Reassessment3

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 68/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.68/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 194ASection 40Section 44A

TDS u/s 194A. The Ld. AR submitted that Section I94A does not apply to individuals unless he is a person liable to tax audit u/s 44AB of the I.T. Act 1961 and in this case, the assessee, being an individual is not within the purview of the said section. Therefore, it was submitted that the department will have to I.T.A

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

6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that the AO, for AY 2008-09, pursuant to the remand order

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

6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that the AO, for AY 2008-09, pursuant to the remand order

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

6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that the AO, for AY 2008-09, pursuant to the remand order

M/S.VENNALA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, KOCHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee was rejected by the CIT(A) for assessment year under consideration

ITA 129/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 154Section 19Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 234ASection 250Section 40Section 80P

section 194A(3)(v) and 194A(3)(viia)(a), the appellant is not liable to deduct TDS on interest payments. The assessing 2 M/s.The Vennala SCB Ltd. officer erred in making additions u/s. 40(a)(ia) for not deducting TDS. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in not considering this ground. 3. Appellant is eligible for deduction

A & B ASSOCIATES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 643/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by directing the AO to -

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Sr. D/R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

133(6) to ascertain the nature of payments made by the firm to them, the total business done by the firm; and ascertain the probable net profit for the said business. Had she taken efforts in that direction, it could easily be ascertained that the cash deposits are business receipts only and there was no "Unexplained money

ABC BUILDWARES(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1`, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 455/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

ABC BUILDWARES INDIA(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 454/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 505/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE-1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 501/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 497/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 498/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 500/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 499/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 502/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

A B C SALES CORPORATION ,KANNUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 404/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

KODIYIL MUHAMMED MADANI, PARTNER(ABC SALAES CORPORATION),TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 523/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

KODIYIL MUHAMMED MADANI PARTNER, ABC SALES CORPORATION,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 836/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

KODIYIL MUHAMMED MADANI, PARTNER (ABC SALES CORPORATION),TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 524/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed