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.

73 results for “TDS”+ Section 249(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai321Delhi264Chennai131Bangalore108Karnataka89Cochin73Raipur69Chandigarh59Ahmedabad54Kolkata52Jaipur47Surat46Hyderabad30Pune30Indore23Visakhapatnam17Lucknow17Amritsar9Cuttack7Rajkot6Agra4Varanasi4Guwahati3Nagpur3Jodhpur3Telangana2Panaji2Kerala1Patna1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 200A(1)116Section 234E98Section 234E(1)76TDS50Section 20042Deduction41Section 200A40Section 200(3)38Addition to Income23Natural Justice

ROSE GEORGE KOLLANUR,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V Ramnath, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

249 2000 Received 4. ICICI Bank 036676 21.10.2013 Part of 770353 256 Booking TDS Online 21.10.2013 TDS 7782 259 7782 Received 5. 036686 28.06.2014 Part 968354321 6. ICICI Bank ICICI Bank Online 20.07.2014 TDS 9782 426 9782 Received 7. ICICI Bank 036689 24.12.2014 Part 733601 538 7031 Received 8. 088355 16.05.2015 Part 733601 776 7031 Received 9. ICICI Bank

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

10
Limitation/Time-bar10
Section 2346

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

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the action of the CPC. Aggrieved, assessee is before us. 5. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee, drew our attention to the fact that the issue of levy of late ‘fee’ before

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

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the action of the CPC. Aggrieved, assessee is before us. 5. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee, drew our attention to the fact that the issue of levy of late ‘fee’ before

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, OTTAPPALAM BRANCH,PALAKKAD vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

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

ITA 808/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, OTTAPPALAM BRANCH,PALAKKAD vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

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

ITA 807/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, OMASSERI BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 806/COCH/2022[2013-2014 (26Q, Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ONCHIYAM BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 798/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q, Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, IRUMBUZHI BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 816/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, IRUMBUZHI BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 819/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, OTHUKKUNGAL BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 820/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, UNNIKULAM BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 813/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ONCHIYAM BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 802/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, OMASSERI BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 804/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, OMASSERI BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 805/COCH/2022[2013-2014 (24Q, Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, UNNIKULAM BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 814/COCH/2022[2013-2014 (24Q, Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, IRUMBUZHI BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 818/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, UNNIKULAM BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 811/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q, Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, UNNIKULAM BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 815/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, UNNIKULAM BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 812/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q, Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ONCHIYAM BRANCH,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 801/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

4 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. Paras 21 & 22 of the decision in Fatheraj Singhvi (infra) specifically hold that the amendment vide Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015 would not have a retroactive effect as it confers a substantive power on the AO and is not merely a regulatory mechanism, as held