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.

106 results for “TDS”+ Section 250(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,463Delhi830Bangalore572Kolkata430Chennai331Pune295Raipur263Ahmedabad236Patna193Hyderabad156Jaipur153Cochin106Nagpur85Karnataka85Chandigarh77Lucknow71Rajkot68Indore63Surat61Visakhapatnam43Guwahati41Amritsar41Panaji30Jodhpur27Agra20Jabalpur20Ranchi16Cuttack16Dehradun13Allahabad9SC3Telangana3Varanasi1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 250138Section 80J36TDS34Section 4031Section 20125Section 234E21Section 80A(2)18Addition to Income18Deduction18Section 143(3)

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

250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased

Showing 1–20 of 106 · Page 1 of 6

17
Section 194A16
Disallowance10

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

250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased

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

250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased

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

250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased

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)

6,45,503, was thus in excess. The amendment to s. 234B(3) by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015, would not be applicable. As per the Assessing Officer(AO) interest on the differential tax of Rs. 15.37 lacs was to be worked from the first day of the assessment year, i.e., 01/4/2010, up to the date of reassessment/recomputation in March

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 31/07/2021, passed under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of the AddI.CIT/ JCIT

M/S WAYANAD DIST. CO.OP BANK LTD.,WAYANAD vs. ITO(TDS), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 961/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jammuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The orders of the CIT(A) arose out of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act. The relevant assessment years are 2016-17 to 2019-20. The assessee has also filed stay applications seeking stay of recovery of the outstanding demand

M/S WAYANAD DIST. CO.OP BANK LTD.,WAYANAD vs. ITO(TDS), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 959/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jammuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The orders of the CIT(A) arose out of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act. The relevant assessment years are 2016-17 to 2019-20. The assessee has also filed stay applications seeking stay of recovery of the outstanding demand

M/S WAYANAD DIST. CO.OP BANK LTD.,WAYANAD vs. ITO(TDS), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 958/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jammuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The orders of the CIT(A) arose out of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act. The relevant assessment years are 2016-17 to 2019-20. The assessee has also filed stay applications seeking stay of recovery of the outstanding demand

M/S WAYANAD DIST. CO.OP BANK LTD.,WAYANAD vs. ITO(TDS), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 960/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jammuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The orders of the CIT(A) arose out of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act. The relevant assessment years are 2016-17 to 2019-20. The assessee has also filed stay applications seeking stay of recovery of the outstanding demand

KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , RANGE -1 , KOCHI, KOCHI

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

ITA 587/COCH/2024[A.Y 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited Athani Aluva Adit, Range-1 Vs. Ernakulam Kochi Kerala 683 585 Pan No : Aaack9968Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Mrs. Remya S. Menon, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.4.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064318699(1) For The Ay 2011-12 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Mrs. Remya S. Menon, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 250Section 40a

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited, Ernakulam Page 2 of 6 Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited, Ernakulam Page 3 of 6 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is a public sector undertaking owned

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 440/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 504/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj

ABC BUILDWARE INDIA (P) LIMITED,PARIYARAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 532/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj

ABDUL GAFOOR MUHAMMED POTTICHI,TAQLIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 517/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj

KODIYIL MUHAMMED MADANI, PARTNER (ABC SALES CORPORATION),TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 528/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 506/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj

ABDUL GAFOOR MUHAMMED POTTICHI,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 513/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 497/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 436/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj