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.

21 results for “TDS”+ Section 220clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi573Patna469Mumbai380Bangalore141Pune125Hyderabad97Karnataka87Chennai85Jaipur52Visakhapatnam48Kolkata43Raipur33Lucknow32Chandigarh31Ahmedabad29Indore27Cochin21Nagpur17Kerala8Rajkot8Ranchi7Agra4Jodhpur4Amritsar3Surat3Dehradun3Cuttack2SC2Telangana1Calcutta1Rajasthan1Varanasi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 234E29Section 4017Addition to Income15TDS15Deduction12Section 200A11Section 220(2)10Section 143(3)9Section 234A8Section 153C

M/S ST. ALPHONSA TIMBERS & TRADERS (PVT) LTD,MARADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 888/COCH/2022[QUARTER-II 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2023

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajeev, (Adv)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234Section 234E

TDS passed an order u/s 154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act on 28.01.2016, raising a total demand of Rs.11,160/- A.Y. 2013-14 Mr. St. Alphonsa Timbers and Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.9,153/- on account of late filing fee u/s 234E & Rs.2,002/- as Interest u/s 220(2) of the Act thereon).” 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 698
Disallowance6

M/S ST. ALPHONSA TIMBERS AND TRADERS (PVT) LTD,MARADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 887/COCH/2022[QUARTER-IV 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2023

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajeev, (Adv)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234Section 234E

TDS passed an order u/s 154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act on 28.01.2016, raising a total demand of Rs.11,160/- A.Y. 2013-14 Mr. St. Alphonsa Timbers and Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.9,153/- on account of late filing fee u/s 234E & Rs.2,002/- as Interest u/s 220(2) of the Act thereon).” 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action

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

section 199 of the IT Act, 1961 and 5 Shri Prem Mukundan Rule 37BA of the IT Rules, 1962 and proper mechanism is also provided under the Act and Rules. Thus, applying the ratio of the above judgement also, the assessee is entitled to get credit on TDS of Rs. 1,34,220

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

220/-. The assessee fails to establish essential requirements for claiming weighted deduction. Therefore, the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal warrants interference under Section 260A of the Act and the question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.” Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court we confirm the disallowances made

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

220, inserted on the statue w.e.f. 01/10/2014, validating the notice of demand till the disposal of the appellate process: ‘1A) Where any notice of demand has been served upon an assessee and any appeal or other proceeding, as the case may be, is filed or initiated in respect of the amount specified in the said notice of demand, then, such

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

220, inserted on the statue w.e.f. 01/10/2014, validating the notice of demand till the disposal of the appellate process: ‘1A) Where any notice of demand has been served upon an assessee and any appeal or other proceeding, as the case may be, is filed or initiated in respect of the amount specified in the said notice of demand, then, such

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

220, inserted on the statue w.e.f. 01/10/2014, validating the notice of demand till the disposal of the appellate process: ‘1A) Where any notice of demand has been served upon an assessee and any appeal or other proceeding, as the case may be, is filed or initiated in respect of the amount specified in the said notice of demand, then, such

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

220, inserted on the statue w.e.f. 01/10/2014, validating the notice of demand till the disposal of the appellate process: ‘1A) Where any notice of demand has been served upon an assessee and any appeal or other proceeding, as the case may be, is filed or initiated in respect of the amount specified in the said notice of demand, then, such

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

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

M/S CEECON READYMIX CONCRETE PVT LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO TDS RANGE, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 1013/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 156Section 192Section 194JSection 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

220(2) was also levied. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) allowed part relief by directing: (a) reckoning the delay w.e.f. 01.06.2015, i.e., the date w.e.f. which s. 200A stood amended to include computing late filing fee u/s.234E while processing the return of TDS statement filed u/s.200(3) by insertion of clause (c) in sub-section

M/S CEECON READYMIX CONCRETE PVT LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO TDS RANGE, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 1014/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 156Section 192Section 194JSection 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

220(2) was also levied. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) allowed part relief by directing: (a) reckoning the delay w.e.f. 01.06.2015, i.e., the date w.e.f. which s. 200A stood amended to include computing late filing fee u/s.234E while processing the return of TDS statement filed u/s.200(3) by insertion of clause (c) in sub-section

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - TDS, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 867/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

TDS) Tbiruvananthapuram 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan ADR Centre, District Court Kowdiar Complex, Vanchiyoor Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Thiruvananthapuram 695035 PAN – AAAGD2665M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Revenue by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 27.02.2023 Date of pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 866/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

TDS) Tbiruvananthapuram 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan ADR Centre, District Court Kowdiar Complex, Vanchiyoor Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Thiruvananthapuram 695035 PAN – AAAGD2665M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Revenue by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 27.02.2023 Date of pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- TDS, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 868/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

TDS) Tbiruvananthapuram 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan ADR Centre, District Court Kowdiar Complex, Vanchiyoor Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Thiruvananthapuram 695035 PAN – AAAGD2665M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Revenue by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 27.02.2023 Date of pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 223/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

220 to 223/Coch/2023 (Assessment Years:2005-06 to 2008-09) Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust ACIT, Central Circle -2 South Nalluvazhi Kandamkulathi Towers vs. North Parur, Kochi 68351 M.G. Road, Kochi 682011 PAN – AAFTS8295L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Mathew Joseph, CA Revenue by: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR Date of hearing: 04.07.2024 Date of pronouncement

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 222/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

220 to 223/Coch/2023 (Assessment Years:2005-06 to 2008-09) Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust ACIT, Central Circle -2 South Nalluvazhi Kandamkulathi Towers vs. North Parur, Kochi 68351 M.G. Road, Kochi 682011 PAN – AAFTS8295L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Mathew Joseph, CA Revenue by: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR Date of hearing: 04.07.2024 Date of pronouncement

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

220 to 223/Coch/2023 (Assessment Years:2005-06 to 2008-09) Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust ACIT, Central Circle -2 South Nalluvazhi Kandamkulathi Towers vs. North Parur, Kochi 68351 M.G. Road, Kochi 682011 PAN – AAFTS8295L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Mathew Joseph, CA Revenue by: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR Date of hearing: 04.07.2024 Date of pronouncement

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 221/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

220 to 223/Coch/2023 (Assessment Years:2005-06 to 2008-09) Santhimadam Agrofarm Trust ACIT, Central Circle -2 South Nalluvazhi Kandamkulathi Towers vs. North Parur, Kochi 68351 M.G. Road, Kochi 682011 PAN – AAFTS8295L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Mathew Joseph, CA Revenue by: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR Date of hearing: 04.07.2024 Date of pronouncement