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.

170 results for “TDS”+ Section 2(43)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,760Mumbai1,695Bangalore870Chennai578Kolkata355Ahmedabad256Hyderabad254Chandigarh195Indore191Jaipur183Cochin170Karnataka151Raipur113Pune106Surat64Cuttack55Visakhapatnam55Lucknow51Rajkot47Dehradun39Ranchi34Nagpur30Guwahati27Jodhpur25Amritsar23Agra22Patna19Telangana16Allahabad14Panaji12SC11Jabalpur7Kerala6Varanasi4Uttarakhand3Calcutta2J&K1Himachal Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 25098Limitation/Time-bar44Section 19234Section 20033Section 206C33TDS23Section 115J18Section 234E17Section 4010Section 10

MR. PREM MUKUNDAN ,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 790/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George George K. (Judicial Member), Ms. Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 192Section 199Section 250

43% and 39% of the returns in Delhi zone for the Financial Year 2010-11 and 2011- 12 respectively were defective. Substantial number of these defaults relate to mismatch of TDS details and the tax payers have been denied benefit of TDS claimed by them. For the Financial Year 2010-11, the approximate demand created in Delhi Zone because

Showing 1–20 of 170 · Page 1 of 9

...
9
Deduction7
Condonation of Delay6

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

43,53,626/-only. 3 2. TDS considered in the manual tax calculation sheet enclosed with the order amounts to Rs.5,03,53,272/- only. As per the order generated by the system as well as our workings, TDS amounts to Rs. 5,05,82,900/-. 3. Interest u/s.234B amounting to Rs. 5,81,36,331/ - only has been levied

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

43(1) of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for allowance as revenue expenditure of pre-operative expenditure ofRs.13,28,53,754/-. iv. Disallowance of excess claim of deduction u/s. 35(2AB) – The appellant company made claim for deduction of Rs. 80,28,91.589/- u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act as against the expenditure certified by DSIR

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 994/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

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

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 993/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

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

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 984/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

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

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 992/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

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

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 986/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

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 987/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

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 989/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

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

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 988/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

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

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 991/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

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

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 990/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

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

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shameem Ahamed, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

TDS with the Government. 27. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the Section, is required to be read into the Section to give the Section a reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation

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

MOHAMED MUSTHAFA KUNNATH CHENGAANA,CALICUT vs. ITO,WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 671/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.P.Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 18Section 2(14)

43,800. The same was revised on 14th August, 2014, disclosing the same income as in the original return of income, however 2 ITA No.671/Coch/2024. Sri.Mohamed Musthafa Kunnath Chengaana. claimed higher refund on account of TDS made by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar amounting to Rs.55,74,400. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income

NEW KABLE POINT,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 268/COCH/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.C.Krishnakumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR
Section 36Section 40

2. The appellant firm had already disallowed an amount of Rs 65,285/ under section 36 of the Act in the total income statement The assessing authority had again added an amount of Rs 65,285/ being the contribution of PF from employees not paid before the due date for paying the PF under section 36 of the Income

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 499/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 502/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed. 56. Coming