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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Section 198clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi294Mumbai258Bangalore164Kolkata103Karnataka87Chennai78Chandigarh61Ahmedabad53Pune50Jaipur43Lucknow39Hyderabad32Indore17Visakhapatnam16Raipur14Surat10Cuttack10Jodhpur10Guwahati8Amritsar6Nagpur6Varanasi5Cochin5Rajkot5Allahabad3Rajasthan3SC3Panaji2Dehradun1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 20118Section 194H9Section 143(3)5Deduction5TDS5Section 142(1)3Section 201(1)3Disallowance3Section 2632Section 194J

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)

section 194H of the Act does not have an application. For the above proposition, the assessee relied on the following judicial pronouncements: 1) CIT vs. Mother Diary India Ltd. 18 Taxman Com 49 (Delhi) 2) Kotak Securities Ltd. vs. dy CIT 18 Taxman.Com 48 (Mumbai) 3) CIT vs. Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. 198 Taxman 271 (Del) 4 I.T.A.. Nos.456-458/Coch/2016

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

2
Section 9(1)(vii)2
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)

section 194H of the Act does not have an application. For the above proposition, the assessee relied on the following judicial pronouncements: 1) CIT vs. Mother Diary India Ltd. 18 Taxman Com 49 (Delhi) 2) Kotak Securities Ltd. vs. dy CIT 18 Taxman.Com 48 (Mumbai) 3) CIT vs. Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. 198 Taxman 271 (Del) 4 I.T.A.. Nos.456-458/Coch/2016

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 456/COCH/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: George George K.

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

section 194H of the Act does not have an application. For the above proposition, the assessee relied on the following judicial pronouncements: 1) CIT vs. Mother Diary India Ltd. 18 Taxman Com 49 (Delhi) 2) Kotak Securities Ltd. vs. dy CIT 18 Taxman.Com 48 (Mumbai) 3) CIT vs. Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. 198 Taxman 271 (Del) 4 I.T.A.. Nos.456-458/Coch/2016

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)

TDS provisions. The same poses no issue where the income is indeed taxable in India on accrual basis, so that the tax deduction meets the assessee’s tax liability to that extent. So, however, where not so, the same, being only a part of income (s. 198), stands yet received in India inasmuch as it is paid to the account

M/S.SUDCHEMIE INDIA P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 51/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

section 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2.1 Opening the arguments for and on behalf of the assessee, it was submitted by Shri Bhatt, it’s learned counsel, that even as the impugned order makes several interventions to the assessee’s assessment, i.e., on which the ld. Pr. CIT, the competent authority, found