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.

85 results for “TDS”+ Section 139(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,033Delhi944Bangalore440Chennai395Kolkata266Jaipur181Hyderabad155Ahmedabad122Chandigarh121Pune120Karnataka114Cochin85Indore83Raipur62Visakhapatnam42Nagpur33Lucknow32Rajkot25Guwahati24Cuttack23Agra19Amritsar19Surat16Patna16Jodhpur15SC8Dehradun5Telangana5Jabalpur4Kerala4Allahabad2Panaji2Calcutta2Ranchi2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 250116Section 153C32Section 234E22Addition to Income19Section 4018TDS17Section 143(3)10Section 139(1)10Section 206C10Section 132

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 917/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "tax on total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143. Explanation 3.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section

Showing 1–20 of 85 · Page 1 of 5

9
Deduction8
Disallowance6

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 918/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "tax on total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143. Explanation 3.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 916/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "tax on total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143. Explanation 3.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 919/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "tax on total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143. Explanation 3.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shameem Ahamed, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

TDS is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIB and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 139

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1000/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

139(1). As per Form No. 16 issued subsequently by M/s. HDFC Bank Limited, TDS has been remitted on 06-05-2010 to the Government Account as per challan no. 05194. During the course of hearing the assessee admitted the omission to offer the perquisite value of ESOP to tax. The accordingly concluded the u/s 143(3) assessing the total

DHUSAN MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANNUR, KERALA vs. ITO, KANNUR, KERALA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 287/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Riju AC, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 206CSection 234Section 234ESection 234E(3)

TDS return. It is next contended that levy of interest u/s 234E of the Act is not a mandatory in all cases. However, the ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of CPC. 4. Aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us. 5. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before

DHUSAN MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANNUR, KERALA vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KANNUR, KERALA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 288/COCH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Riju AC, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 206CSection 234Section 234ESection 234E(3)

TDS return. It is next contended that levy of interest u/s 234E of the Act is not a mandatory in all cases. However, the ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of CPC. 4. Aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us. 5. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR vs. KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue ITA No

ITA 600/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavban, Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 Vs. Kannur Building Materials Co-Op. Society Ltd .......... Respondent No. C 1741, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur 670561 [Pan: Aaaak7151K]

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 40Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee during the impugned assessment year engaged in sand mining and selling. The object of the society to control the spending, to encouragement investment, self-sufficiency, co-operative attitude among members of the society and also to take measures to improve the financial, educational

KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 223/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 154Section 239Section 80A

TDS and refund due to the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant had not filed return of income either voluntarily under the provisions of section 139(1

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

ITA 223/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

139 was processed u/s 143(1) and that the assessment originally made u/s1153C on 28/12/2010 is the regular assessment/reassessment for the purpose of charging interests u/s 234A and u/s 234B. 8. The learned Commissioner went wrong in applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mahesh Investments Vs ACIT (277 Taxman 161/429ITR284) to hold

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

ITA 221/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

139 was processed u/s 143(1) and that the assessment originally made u/s1153C on 28/12/2010 is the regular assessment/reassessment for the purpose of charging interests u/s 234A and u/s 234B. 8. The learned Commissioner went wrong in applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mahesh Investments Vs ACIT (277 Taxman 161/429ITR284) to hold

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

ITA 222/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

139 was processed u/s 143(1) and that the assessment originally made u/s1153C on 28/12/2010 is the regular assessment/reassessment for the purpose of charging interests u/s 234A and u/s 234B. 8. The learned Commissioner went wrong in applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mahesh Investments Vs ACIT (277 Taxman 161/429ITR284) to hold

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

ITA 220/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

139 was processed u/s 143(1) and that the assessment originally made u/s1153C on 28/12/2010 is the regular assessment/reassessment for the purpose of charging interests u/s 234A and u/s 234B. 8. The learned Commissioner went wrong in applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mahesh Investments Vs ACIT (277 Taxman 161/429ITR284) to hold

DJ AMUSEMENTS,8/58 8/58 ,CHATHANKANDATH HOUSE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

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

ITA 758/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Hon’Ble Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.758/Coch/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dj Amusements, The Income Tax Officer, Mankara P.O, Vs. Ward-1 & Tps, Palakkad – 678 614. Palakkad. Kerala Pan: Aahfd 2211P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sivadas Chettoor, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Smt Leena Lal, Snr Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ():

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chettoor, C.A ""For Respondent: Smt Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 139

139. 3. The assessee contended that the rent payments were made to Punalur Municipality and Orkkatteri Panchayat, both of which are “local authorities” as defined under Section 10(20) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the binding CBDT Circular, no TDS was deductible, and consequently, the order passed under Sections 201(1

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 440/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

ABC BUILDWARE INDIA (P) LIMITED,PARIYARAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 532/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

ABDUL GAFOOR MUHAMMED POTTICHI,TAQLIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 517/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

KEERAN MUHAMMED BASHEER,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 508/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming