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(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,094Mumbai1,028Bangalore604Chennai472Ahmedabad201Kolkata174Karnataka132Pune98Hyderabad87Chandigarh83Jaipur75Visakhapatnam49Indore39Rajkot33Cochin31Cuttack21Lucknow20Raipur18Dehradun16Surat10Telangana8Jabalpur8Nagpur8Jodhpur7Allahabad6Panaji5SC5Amritsar4Agra4Calcutta3Kerala2Guwahati2Patna1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

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

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

2 of section 9(1)(vii)of Income Tax Act and liable for TDS. 5.2 The Ld AO erred in not appreciating that the assessee company has made payment of Rs 1,07,08,950/- for clinical trials majorly to Apollo Tyres Middle East FZE on cost to cost basis; hence TDS not deducted. 5.3 The Ld. AO has erred

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

11
Section 271C10
Disallowance10

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)

2) of the Act. 7.6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ACIT and DRP have erred in law by confirming the disallowance of management fees paid by the Appellant to USTR, under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, on the grounds of perceived non- withholding of tax at source under section 195

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)

2) of the Act. 7.6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ACIT and DRP have erred in law by confirming the disallowance of management fees paid by the Appellant to USTR, under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, on the grounds of perceived non- withholding of tax at source under section 195

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

2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 464/Coch/2023 for AY 2006-07 are stated herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company

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

2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 464/Coch/2023 for AY 2006-07 are stated herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company

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

2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 464/Coch/2023 for AY 2006-07 are stated herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company

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)

section 9(1)(vii) r.w.s. Explanation 2 of the Act and therefore the payment made to managers are income by way of fees for technical services deemed to accrue or arise in India. Referring to the DTAA between India and UK, the Tribunal found that no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know how or process, etc. was made available

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)

section 9(1)(vii) r.w.s. Explanation 2 of the Act and therefore the payment made to managers are income by way of fees for technical services deemed to accrue or arise in India. Referring to the DTAA between India and UK, the Tribunal found that no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know how or process, etc. was made available

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)

section 9(1)(vii) r.w.s. Explanation 2 of the Act and therefore the payment made to managers are income by way of fees for technical services deemed to accrue or arise in India. Referring to the DTAA between India and UK, the Tribunal found that no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know how or process, etc. was made available

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)

section 9(1)(vii) r.w.s. Explanation 2 of the Act and therefore the payment made to managers are income by way of fees for technical services deemed to accrue or arise in India. Referring to the DTAA between India and UK, the Tribunal found that no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know how or process, etc. was made available

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)

section 9(1)(vii) r.w.s. Explanation 2 of the Act and therefore the payment made to managers are income by way of fees for technical services deemed to accrue or arise in India. Referring to the DTAA between India and UK, the Tribunal found that no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know how or process, etc. was made available

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

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

2 & 3 there was a disallowance of Rs.55,78,022/- under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of tax in respect of payments made to non-residents. Payments were made towards exhibition expenses, commission and sample testing charges to the non- residents. As per the AO TDS has to be deducted by the assessee before remitting

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

2 ITA No.96/Coch/2015. M/s.Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Limited. has been imposed u/s 271C of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.9,12,060. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a company engaged in the business of running a resort, namely, `The Elephant Court’ at Thekkady. For the assessment year 2010-2011, the assessee had deducted

SHRI SURESH GEORGE,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ADIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3, THIRUVANATHAPURAM

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

ITA 794/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysuresh George Asstt. Director Of Income Tax Kurichyiel House International Taxation Payippad, Harippad Vs. Thiruvananthapuram Alappuzha 690 556 [Pan:Affpg5853B]

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194JSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act would not apply inasmuch as the remuneration received, despite being subject to TDS u/s. 194J of the Act, is not a fee for technical services, but salary, tax deduction at source on which – over which he though has no control,hadto be, if at all, u/s. 192 of the Act. We find

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

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 authorities regarding non deduction of Tax at source by the assessee at the relevant time of making

M/S.MITHRA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE JT CIT(TDS), COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 212/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

Section 115Section 194BSection 201Section 271BSection 271CSection 271C(1)Section 274

TDS) and the reply dated 29.02.2012 filed by the appellant are produced herewith and marked as Annexures A & B respectively. 7. In this connection, the adjudicating officer also failed to consider that Circular No.551 dated 23.01.1990 explaining the scope of new section 271C vide Para 16.5 clearly showed that the object of introducing the new section was to provide

M/S.PARCO DIAGNOSTICS & REASEARCH CENTRE P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT(TDS), CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 458/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS, the recipient doctors would have been forced to disclose this income in their returns of income. By not deducting tax, the appellant helped the recipient doctors to evade tax. Therefore, the decision of the Assessing Officer to invoke the provisions of section 201 rws 194H on these payments is correct. In view of this, I confirm the action

M/S.PARCO DIAGNOSTICS & REASEARCH CENTRE P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT(TDS), CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 457/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS, the recipient doctors would have been forced to disclose this income in their returns of income. By not deducting tax, the appellant helped the recipient doctors to evade tax. Therefore, the decision of the Assessing Officer to invoke the provisions of section 201 rws 194H on these payments is correct. In view of this, I confirm the action