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.

240 results for “TDS”+ Section 2(15)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,051Delhi4,033Bangalore2,009Chennai1,487Kolkata942Pune540Hyderabad526Ahmedabad459Jaipur346Indore302Karnataka301Chandigarh255Cochin240Raipur233Nagpur190Patna189Visakhapatnam148Surat108Rajkot104Lucknow90Jodhpur56Cuttack49Ranchi45Telangana39Panaji37Guwahati37Amritsar36Dehradun30Agra27SC21Jabalpur17Kerala14Allahabad13Calcutta12Himachal Pradesh8Varanasi6Rajasthan5Punjab & Haryana3Orissa3Uttarakhand3J&K2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1Bombay1

Key Topics

Limitation/Time-bar71Section 25021TDS17Section 234E12Section 26312Section 4012Section 143(3)11Section 2009Section 206C9Section 192

VADAKKEVILA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 478/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms.Anoopa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

15 ITA No.478/Coch/2023. Vadakkevila SCB Ltd. the scope and meaning of a banking company under section 2(c) of the BR Act, 1949 on obtaining licence under section 22 of the said Act. Conclusion: In the instant case, although the appellant society is an apex co- operative society within the meaning of the State

Showing 1–20 of 240 · Page 1 of 12

...
9
Addition to Income8
Deduction8

THE KAREEPPA PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.D,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 732/COCH/2023[AY-2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Anoopa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 40Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

15 Kareeppa Panchayat Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. \ 15.6. Section 2(w) states that words and expressions used in the NABARD Act, 1981 which are not defined therein but defined in the RBI Act, shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Act. Section 2(x) of the said Act states that words and expressions used

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

15 of the Act, requiring TDS under Section 192, or 'professional fees' taxable under Section 28, requiring 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

M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

ITA 389/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 42

TDS - Large other expenses claimed in the Profit and Loss Account. n) The Assessing officer after examining reasons for selecting the return for limited scrutiny based on the records and submissions made by the assessee accepted the return and completed the Limited scrutiny by order dated 27.10.2017 without any adjustment to the loss as returned. o) The reason for initiation

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

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

15. The ground of appeal No. 7 challenges the disallowance of year end provisions of Rs. 2,86,39,000/-. It is submitted that the appellant company made provisions for various expenditures. Since the payee was not identifiable, TDS was not made on such payment and, therefore, in the immediately next year the provision was reversed and deduction was claimed

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) of section 115-O (coming under Chapter XII-D) or covered by the “second proviso” to section 194B (coming under Chapter XVII-B) alone would constitute an instance where penalty can be imposed in 6 ITA No.96/Coch/2015. M/s.Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Limited. terms of section 271C(1)(b) of the Act. Since there is no obscurity in the above

GEORGE KOCHUPARAMBIL, PROP. UNITED GRANITES & METALS,THODUPUZHA vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

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

ITA 190/COCH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Juduicial Member & Ms. Padmavathy Sshri George Kochuparambil Kochuparambil House Dcit/Acit, Central Vazhithala P.O. Vs. Circle Thodupuzha Kochi Idukki 685583 Pan – Afjpk9650E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri M. Jarasekhar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2023

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Jarasekhar, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

15,860/- under Section 37 of the Act was not an allowable expenditure. The assessee, in response to the same, filed reply on 19.03.2021 and 05.10.2021. He submitted that the AO has called for details and on verification had made disallowance under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.41,41,053/- in the original assessment proceedings. He submitted that

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

TDS amounts to Rs. 5,05,82,900/-. 3. Interest u/s.234B amounting to Rs. 5,81,36,331/ - only has been levied in the ordergenerated by the system.Interest u/s.234B amounting toRs.5,81,13,891/- only has been levied in the manual tax calculation sheet enclosed with the order. As per our working, interest u/s.234B amounts to Rs.5

MARIAMMA JOSEPH,KOTTAYAMN vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is decided on the aforesaid terms

ITA 672/COCH/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasmariamma Joseph Asst. Cit, Central Circle Hotel Floral Park Kottayam 686001 Gandhinagar Vs. Kottayam 686008 [Pan:Accpj9135F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 208Section 210Section 234Section 234BSection 234B(3)

2,28,114, stood processed, or deemed to be so, in October, 2010, or latest by March, 2012. Interest u/s. 234B(3), which is to be for the period following the date of processing up to the date of reassessment or, as Mariamma Joseph v. Asst. CIT, Central Circle the case may be, recomputation, u/s. 153A in March

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT,TDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 1061/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 194ASection 201Section 297

TDS 2 AAATF0888P PROVINCIAL 29,60,017 26A furnished for FY: 2014- 206,932/- & BURSAR 15 shows that Rs.890,694/- only was taken as interest income from SIB. The deductor claimed that the remaining amount of Rs.20,69,323/- was shown in FY: 2015-16. However, neither the computation nor the 26A for FY: 2015-16 is clear

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 917/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

2(40)), where the same is subsequently set aside for fresh assessment. Despite it being subsequently set aside, the Hon'ble Court held it to be the date of the original order. The reason that found favour with the Hon'ble Court, as a reading of it’s detailed judgment shows, is that once the tax paid, either

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 919/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

2(40)), where the same is subsequently set aside for fresh assessment. Despite it being subsequently set aside, the Hon'ble Court held it to be the date of the original order. The reason that found favour with the Hon'ble Court, as a reading of it’s detailed judgment shows, is that once the tax paid, either

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 916/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

2(40)), where the same is subsequently set aside for fresh assessment. Despite it being subsequently set aside, the Hon'ble Court held it to be the date of the original order. The reason that found favour with the Hon'ble Court, as a reading of it’s detailed judgment shows, is that once the tax paid, either

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 918/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

2(40)), where the same is subsequently set aside for fresh assessment. Despite it being subsequently set aside, the Hon'ble Court held it to be the date of the original order. The reason that found favour with the Hon'ble Court, as a reading of it’s detailed judgment shows, is that once the tax paid, either

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

THOMAS JOHN MUTHOOT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 , THIRUVALLA, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 896/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Thomas John Muthoot Dcit, Circle - 1 Muthoot Centre, Punnen Road Thiruvalla Vs. Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Abnpt4694B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das
Section 194ASection 40

2 Thomas John Muthoot added to the total income of the assessee. The action of the AO was subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The learned A.R. before us submitted that interest was paid by the assessee to a firm

NAHAS HOSPITAL,PARAPPANANGADI vs. THE ACIT TDS, KOZHIKKODE

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

ITA 117/COCH/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Nahas Hospital Acit (Tds) (Osd) Pp/Xvll/191 Kozhiikode Vs. Parappanagadi Malappuram 676303 Pan –Aadfn5549C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194C(5)Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was conducted by the Income Tax officers (TDS) in the premises of M/s. Nahas Hospital

VISWANATHA SHENOY,ERNAKULAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

ITA 34/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Nithyananda
Section 194CSection 40

TDS as per section 194C of Page 2 of 4 the Act and therefore the AO had issued a notice proposing to disallow the expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee submitted that he has obtained the declaration in form 15

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 985/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

TDS returns/statements (in Form 24Q & 26Q) for FY 2015-16 to FY 2018-19, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department [CIT(A)] vide his separate orders dated 30.08.2022. 2. The appeals raising a common issue, were taken up together for hearing, and are being accordingly disposed of per a common, consolidated order. 3. The appeals, filed