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.

31 results for “TDS”+ Section 195(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,092Mumbai1,027Bangalore604Chennai470Ahmedabad201Kolkata174Karnataka132Pune98Hyderabad88Chandigarh83Jaipur75Visakhapatnam49Indore39Rajkot33Cochin31Cuttack21Lucknow20Raipur18Dehradun16Surat10Telangana8Jabalpur8Nagpur8Jodhpur7Allahabad6Panaji5SC5Amritsar4Agra4Calcutta3Kerala2Guwahati2Patna1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 9(1)(vii)32Section 19531Section 20129TDS28Section 4022Deduction20Section 143(3)14Section 201(1)13Double Taxation/DTAA11Addition to Income

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)

section 195(1) of the Act holding that the amounts paid to lead managers and managers were chargeable to tax in India as fees for technical services within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Appellate Commissioner also upheld the order of the assessing officer. On further appeal before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

11
Section 271C10
Disallowance10

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)

section 195(1) of the Act holding that the amounts paid to lead managers and managers were chargeable to tax in India as fees for technical services within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Appellate Commissioner also upheld the order of the assessing officer. On further appeal before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal

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

195 of the Act. Hence, the ratio of those decisions cannot be applied in the context of provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Once there is a failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source, the provisions of section 40(a)(i) are triggered. Recently the coordinate bench of this Tribunal

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 101/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40aSection 9(1)(vii)

195 and passed order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act on 30/03/2015, disallowing the said payments. 3. The first common ground in all the appeals is with regard to the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the tax levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the I.T. Act on account

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 100/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40aSection 9(1)(vii)

195 and passed order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act on 30/03/2015, disallowing the said payments. 3. The first common ground in all the appeals is with regard to the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the tax levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the I.T. Act on account

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 102/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

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

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40aSection 9(1)(vii)

195 and passed order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act on 30/03/2015, disallowing the said payments. 3. The first common ground in all the appeals is with regard to the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the tax levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the I.T. Act on account

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 99/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40aSection 9(1)(vii)

195 and passed order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act on 30/03/2015, disallowing the said payments. 3. The first common ground in all the appeals is with regard to the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the tax levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the I.T. Act on account

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 103/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40aSection 9(1)(vii)

195 and passed order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act on 30/03/2015, disallowing the said payments. 3. The first common ground in all the appeals is with regard to the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the tax levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the I.T. Act on account

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

TDS only on a sum of Rs. 1,32,42,920/- and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source treating it as mere reimbursement of expenditure to MPCMS. The said payee, i.e. MPCMS also raised different bills. The AO was of the opinion that the money paid towards management consultancy charges under composite contract and the contract

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

TDS only on a sum of Rs. 1,32,42,920/- and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source treating it as mere reimbursement of expenditure to MPCMS. The said payee, i.e. MPCMS also raised different bills. The AO was of the opinion that the money paid towards management consultancy charges under composite contract and the contract

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

TDS only on a sum of Rs. 1,32,42,920/- and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source treating it as mere reimbursement of expenditure to MPCMS. The said payee, i.e. MPCMS also raised different bills. The AO was of the opinion that the money paid towards management consultancy charges under composite contract and the contract

M/S.VIJAYA HOSPITALITY AND RESORTS LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADCIT(TDS), COCHIN

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

ITA 96/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Cochin24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 271CSection 273Section 273B

1 day in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and an affidavit of the Managing Director of the assessee-company stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the reasons stated for belated filing of the appeal, we noticed that no latches can be attributed to the assessee

M/S SAFA ENTERPRISES ,KODUNGALLUR vs. THE ACIT , RANGE 2 ,CIRCLE 1, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 232/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: ------- None ------For Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

195 r.w.s. 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the AYs2010-11 and 2013-14. Therefore, the AO disallowed the same by adding to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal to the learned CIT(A) who has confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under

M/S SAFA ENTERPRISES ,KODUNGALLUR vs. THE ACIT , RANGE 2 , THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 231/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: ------- None ------For Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

195 r.w.s. 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the AYs2010-11 and 2013-14. Therefore, the AO disallowed the same by adding to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal to the learned CIT(A) who has confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under

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

1,12,19,079. Further, in view of provisions of Section 194J Explanation (c)/Section 195 Explanation I, the assessee should have deducted tax at source while making such provision. Since the assessee failed to do so, the amount becomes disallowable as per provisions of section 40a(i)/(ia) also. AO is free to inform the concerned TDS

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 448/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 10B(3)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 195(6)Section 40

TDS being deducted by the assessee. Respectfully following the Supreme Court decision, I hold that there was no liability for the appellant to deduct tax at source u/s 195( 1) and accordingly the addition of Rs. 55,78,022/- is deleted.” 5. From the above order of the CIT(A) we observed that he has done a good reasoned order

M/S.THOMSON INDUTRIES,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2 ,ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 195/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Ita Nos. 195 & 196/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Thomson Industries, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Thazhekkad, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Thrissur. Kochi. [Pan:Aafft 8235M]

Section 40

195 & 196/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Thomson Industries, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Thazhekkad, Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Thrissur. Kochi. [PAN:AAFFT 8235M] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Satish John Kanichai, FCA Revenue by Shri Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14/01/2020 Date of pronouncement 14/01/2020 O R D E R Per CHANDRA

M/S.THOMSON INDUTRIES,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2 ,ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 196/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Ita Nos. 195 & 196/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Thomson Industries, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Thazhekkad, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Thrissur. Kochi. [Pan:Aafft 8235M]

Section 40

195 & 196/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Thomson Industries, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Thazhekkad, Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Thrissur. Kochi. [PAN:AAFFT 8235M] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Satish John Kanichai, FCA Revenue by Shri Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14/01/2020 Date of pronouncement 14/01/2020 O R D E R Per CHANDRA

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 721/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS. The AO also considered whether the said payments would fall under the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. If the said payment would fall u/s. 9(1)(vii), whether the said payments are eligible for exemption as per the DTAA. Finally, the AO arrived the conclusion that the non-residents do not have any business connection

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 723/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS. The AO also considered whether the said payments would fall under the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. If the said payment would fall u/s. 9(1)(vii), whether the said payments are eligible for exemption as per the DTAA. Finally, the AO arrived the conclusion that the non-residents do not have any business connection