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.

16 results for “TDS”+ Section 271(1)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai842Delhi831Bangalore270Chennai189Ahmedabad147Karnataka134Kolkata126Jaipur122Hyderabad96Raipur95Pune88Chandigarh67Indore60Surat43Visakhapatnam29Rajkot20Nagpur20Lucknow19Cochin16Amritsar15Dehradun11Panaji10Cuttack9Guwahati7Patna6Jodhpur4Varanasi4SC4Telangana4Jabalpur3Ranchi2Allahabad2Orissa1Kerala1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)40Section 271C34Section 20120TDS13Penalty12Section 194J10Section 54F6Addition to Income6Section 143(3)4Disallowance

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

271. In other words, clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271C (dealing with failure to remit the deducted tax) is not excluded or the benefit is not confined to the instance covered by section 271C(1)(a) alone. Section 273B itself starts with a “non obstante clause” saying that the benefit is to be extended, to the extent

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

4
Section 271(1)(c)3
Section 92C3

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

271 while completing the assessment u/s. 143(3). Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has claimed the deduction u/s. 54F based on the fact that the assessee has paid the amount

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 608/COCH/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 613/COCH/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 612/COCH/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 607/COCH/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 610/COCH/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 609/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 606/COCH/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 611/COCH/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 614/COCH/2010[007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 615/COCH/2010[09-Aug]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

B) dated 29- 01-1997. As per the extract from the said circular referred to by the Hon. Supreme Court, "No demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the Tax deductor has satisfied the Officer in charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee. However this will

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

b) whether the Tribunal had erred in granting deduction under Section 35D regarding short-term loan, in view of the Explanation to Section 35D(3) which refers only to long-term borrowings, and (c) whether the Tribunal had erred in directing deduction under Section 80HH and 80-1 on the miscellaneous income of Rs.26,64,113 being income on sale

SRI. GEORGE MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 251/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Preetha S. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT-DR
Section 40

TDS liability may arise if composite bills have been issued.” “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the assessing officer treating Agricultural Income as Business Income. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of 10% of expenses amounting

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI. GEORGE MATHEW, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Preetha S. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT-DR
Section 40

TDS liability may arise if composite bills have been issued.” “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the assessing officer treating Agricultural Income as Business Income. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of 10% of expenses amounting

SRI. MANZAR ALIKUNJU,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 131/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 132/Coch/2016 is dismissed. 8. In the appeal in ITA No. 131/Coch/2016 for the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered and held that