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.

6 results for “TDS”+ Section 144C(15)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi627Mumbai517Bangalore230Chennai55Ahmedabad53Kolkata49Hyderabad47Pune32Chandigarh17Dehradun16Jaipur11Indore7Cochin6Karnataka3Visakhapatnam3Rajkot1Amritsar1Kerala1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 144C8Section 143(3)6Section 144C(5)5Section 405Disallowance4Section 92C3Transfer Pricing3Deduction3Addition to Income3Section 115J

IFTHIKAR KARUPPAMVEETIL ABDUL RAHMAN,CHAVAKKAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 119/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 147Section 56Section 57

15)(b)(ii) was vide Finance Act, 2020, is by way of a substitution. Non- residents who were not eligible assessees under Section 144C of the Act prior to 31.03.2020, were brought within the ambit of the Section, w.e.f 01.04.2020 only. Insofar as a non- resident is concerned, it is a new imposition/coverage under a taxing provision

2
Section 352
Section 234B2

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)

144C(5) of the I.T.Act, dated 28.12.2015. Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, they are being heard together and disposed off by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience. 2. Grounds of appeal raised in ITA No.475/Coch/2016 are reproduced below:- “The grounds stated hereunder are independent of, and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant submits

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)

144C(5) of the I.T.Act, dated 28.12.2015. Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, they are being heard together and disposed off by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience. 2. Grounds of appeal raised in ITA No.475/Coch/2016 are reproduced below:- “The grounds stated hereunder are independent of, and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant submits

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

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act') by 8 Apollo Tyres Ltd. the Assessing Officer (AO') pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the additions/disallowances made by the AO are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. The additions/disallowances made are unsustainable, unjust, highly excessive and are not based on any material

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 489/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santhom Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 156Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

b) of the I.T.Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its order dated ITA No.489/Coch/2016 & SA 60/Coch/2017. 3 M/s.Allianz Cornhill International Services Pvt.Ltd. 12.08.2016, disposed off the objections of the assessee. The direction of the DRP are as follows:- (i) Disallowance of provision for legal & professional charges was enhanced to Rs.1,74,48,290 instead of Rs.1

TORRY HARRIS SEA FOODS LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 447/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

144C(5) of the Act dated 25/08/2016. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore is not justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant for the Glazing Loss in the commodity exported. I.T.(TP)A. No./447C/2016 2. The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore