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.

253 results for “TDS”+ Section 14clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,118Delhi4,070Bangalore2,100Chennai1,465Kolkata976Pune656Hyderabad576Ahmedabad518Raipur366Jaipur362Indore317Karnataka281Nagpur278Chandigarh277Cochin253Surat198Visakhapatnam174Rajkot128Lucknow92Amritsar89Cuttack85Dehradun64Ranchi49Jabalpur45Patna44Jodhpur42Panaji42Telangana40Agra38Allahabad36Guwahati34SC19Varanasi14Calcutta12Kerala12Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Uttarakhand3Punjab & Haryana3J&K2Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Limitation/Time-bar61Section 234E42Section 25025TDS21Section 142(1)14Section 4014Section 200A13Section 143(3)12Section 26312Deduction

ELAVANCHALIL ABDUL BASHEER,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 310/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer .......... Appellant Oittannmakm, Koduvally, Kozhikode 673572 [Pan: Bbwpb4939D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Agriculture’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 21.12.2020 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,60,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhokode

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

TDS of Rs. 4,64,100/- was paid by the buyer of the property. Based on this information the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why the above property cannot be considered as non-agricultural land and also submitted the evidence in support of the agricultural expenditure incurred. It was stated that for failure of the assessee

Showing 1–20 of 253 · Page 1 of 13

...
12
Addition to Income11
Section 220(2)10

GULF ASIA CONTRACTING CO. PVT. LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 1 (1), KOLLAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 388/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gulf Asia Contracting Company Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Xxv/812 Srivaldsam, Thevally P.O. Kollam 691009 [Pan: Aaecg1332Q] Vs. Acit, Circle - 1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bavan, Karbala Jn. Kollam 690001 Appellant By: Shri Rajeev, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 155Section 155(14)Section 219

TDS cannot be granted in the absence of any 3 Gulf Asia Contracting Company Pvt. Ltd. application made in terms of provisions of section 155(14

INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. MUTHOOT HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOZHENCHERRY

Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the same. Thus, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 517/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Thomson Thomas, CA
Section 192Section 194Section 194(2)Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

TDS under Section 194J. The determination hinges on whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the appellant and the doctors. 3 Assessment Year 2018-2019 5.2 It is a well-established principle in income tax law that the nature of payment is determined by the substance of the relationship between the payer and the payee, rather than merely the nomenclature

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

ITA 171/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dijo Mathew, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

14 (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, 97[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be.” 8. From the reading of the above provision, the penalty u/s. 270A(1) could be imposed

M/S ST. ALPHONSA TIMBERS AND TRADERS (PVT) LTD,MARADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 887/COCH/2022[QUARTER-IV 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2023

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajeev, (Adv)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234Section 234E

14. We may now deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The first contention for assailing the legality and validity of the intimation under section 200A was that, the provision of section 200A(1)(c), (d) and (f) have come into force only with effect from 1.6.2015 and hence, there was no authority or competence

M/S ST. ALPHONSA TIMBERS & TRADERS (PVT) LTD,MARADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 888/COCH/2022[QUARTER-II 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2023

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajeev, (Adv)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234Section 234E

14. We may now deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The first contention for assailing the legality and validity of the intimation under section 200A was that, the provision of section 200A(1)(c), (d) and (f) have come into force only with effect from 1.6.2015 and hence, there was no authority or competence

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

14,48,676/- as per Form 26AS. The AO without making necessary inquiry allowed the claim of the TDS credit. 5. Likewise, the learned PCIT noticed that the AO made addition of Rs. 85,60,650/- under section

ANUMOD VISHWAMBHARAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO TDS WARD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 78/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 78/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 79/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Anumod Viswambharan बनाम/ Ito Tc 8/2164, Cheruvikal, Tds Ward, Aayakar Vs. Medical College, Bhavan, Peroorkada Thiruvananthapuram- Road, Kowdiar, 695011. Thiruvananthapuram. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adjpv0729M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 201Section 234E

14. We may now deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The first contention for assailing the legality and validity of the intimation under section 200A was that, the provision of section 200A(1)(c), (d) and (f) have come into force only with effect from 1.6.2015 and hence, there was no authority or competence

ANUMOD VISHWAMBHARAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO TDS WARD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 79/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 78/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 79/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Anumod Viswambharan बनाम/ Ito Tc 8/2164, Cheruvikal, Tds Ward, Aayakar Vs. Medical College, Bhavan, Peroorkada Thiruvananthapuram- Road, Kowdiar, 695011. Thiruvananthapuram. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adjpv0729M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 201Section 234E

14. We may now deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The first contention for assailing the legality and validity of the intimation under section 200A was that, the provision of section 200A(1)(c), (d) and (f) have come into force only with effect from 1.6.2015 and hence, there was no authority or competence

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

TDS. We find that the said amount was added based on the figures found place in the books of account and not based on the incriminating materials seized during the search. Therefore, when the AO made an assessment u/s. 153C of the Act, he cannot make addition u/s. 68 or 69 since the same was not made based

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

TDS. We find that the said amount was added based on the figures found place in the books of account and not based on the incriminating materials seized during the search. Therefore, when the AO made an assessment u/s. 153C of the Act, he cannot make addition u/s. 68 or 69 since the same was not made based

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

TDS. We find that the said amount was added based on the figures found place in the books of account and not based on the incriminating materials seized during the search. Therefore, when the AO made an assessment u/s. 153C of the Act, he cannot make addition u/s. 68 or 69 since the same was not made based

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

TDS. We find that the said amount was added based on the figures found place in the books of account and not based on the incriminating materials seized during the search. Therefore, when the AO made an assessment u/s. 153C of the Act, he cannot make addition u/s. 68 or 69 since the same was not made based

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

14,06,31,409/- u/s 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS 5.1 The Ld. AO has erred in considering reimbursement of Rs 12,68,42,880/- towards Salary and other R&D expenses within the scope of "Fee for technical Services under explanation 2 of section

MATHIIT LEARNING PRIVATE LIMITED,SASTHAMANGALAM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 9/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jul 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Yedhu Krishanan G., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jammuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234Section 234E

TDS in ITA No.16, 17 & 18/ASR/2019 v) ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Elite Engineering (Hyd) Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO Ward- 1-(2) Hyderabad in ITA No.2155 to 2159/H17 - AY 13-14, ITA No.2160 to 2163/H/7 - AY 14-15 and ITA No.2164 to 2167/H/7 - AY 15-16 decided on 29.11.2018 4.1 The Hon Kerala High Court decision cited

MATHIIT LEARNING PRIVATE LIMITED,SASTHAMANGALAM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 7/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jul 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Yedhu Krishanan G., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jammuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234Section 234E

TDS in ITA No.16, 17 & 18/ASR/2019 v) ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Elite Engineering (Hyd) Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO Ward- 1-(2) Hyderabad in ITA No.2155 to 2159/H17 - AY 13-14, ITA No.2160 to 2163/H/7 - AY 14-15 and ITA No.2164 to 2167/H/7 - AY 15-16 decided on 29.11.2018 4.1 The Hon Kerala High Court decision cited

MATHIIT LEARNING PRIVATE LIMITED,SASTHAMANGALAM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the ITA Nos

ITA 8/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jul 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Yedhu Krishanan G., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jammuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 234Section 234E

TDS in ITA No.16, 17 & 18/ASR/2019 v) ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Elite Engineering (Hyd) Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO Ward- 1-(2) Hyderabad in ITA No.2155 to 2159/H17 - AY 13-14, ITA No.2160 to 2163/H/7 - AY 14-15 and ITA No.2164 to 2167/H/7 - AY 15-16 decided on 29.11.2018 4.1 The Hon Kerala High Court decision cited

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 154 of the Act ought to have been entertained by the Revenue. 10. In this regard, learned DR also made submission that the decision of the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, was in relation to provisions of Rule 37BA of the Rules which is applicable to TDS and not to TCS and it is only Rule 37-I of the Rules

M/S. POYANIL HOSPITAL,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE ITO, TDS, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

ITA 795/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2013-14 M/S.Poyanil Hospital, Ito, Vs. Poyanil, Tds, Kozhencherry. Alappuzha. Pan :Aacfm 7322 F Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. M. S. Rajagopal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

14. 2. The solitary issue raised in all these appeals is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer’s order u/s 200A of the I.T. Act, wherein he levied late fees u/s 234E of the I.T. Act for various quarters. The assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee in the 3rd 3. quarter for the Financial

MOHAMED MUSTHAFA KUNNATH CHENGAANA,CALICUT vs. ITO,WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 671/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.P.Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 18Section 2(14)

TDS and the appellant’s share of 1/9th of Rs.47,46,504 was brought to tax as business profit of the appellant, by the AO. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), contending that the rural agricultural land does not come under the purview of “Capital Asset” as defined under the provisions