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.

4 results for “TDS”+ Section 292clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai335Delhi333Bangalore269Chennai97Karnataka94Kolkata71Chandigarh64Hyderabad53Ahmedabad37Jaipur32Indore32Cuttack25Pune21Raipur15Nagpur13Visakhapatnam12Guwahati8Lucknow5Surat5Amritsar4Cochin4Rajkot3Patna3Allahabad2Panaji2Ranchi2SC1Telangana1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 194C8Section 200A(1)6Section 234E4TDS4Section 194J3Deduction3Condonation of Delay2Addition to Income2Survey u/s 133A2

M/S.MALAYALAM COMMUNICATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)

section 194J. In the backdrop of the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Tribunals relied on by the assessee are totally misplaced since in the case Prasar Bharti (292 ITR 580), payments were made to outside producers for programmes. In the Tribunals decisions also payments were made as technical fee to the managing director

M/S ATHAZHAKUNNU MAPPILA L.P. SCHOOL,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD TDS, KANNUR

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

ITA 912/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Cochin
31 Jul 2023
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrisanjay Arora & Shriabyt.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200A(1)Section 234E

section 200A(1) of the Act even as there was, prior to 01.6.2015, no provision for the said levy while processing a TDS return u/s. 200A(1) of the Act, which 1 ITA Nos. 911& 912/Coch/2022 (AY 2014-15) Athazhakunnu Mappilla L.P. School v. ITO came on the statute only by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. from that date. The issue

M/S ATHAZHAKUNNU MAPPILA L.P SCHOOL,KANNUR vs. ITO ,WARD TDS, KANNUR

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

ITA 911/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrisanjay Arora & Shriabyt.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200A(1)Section 234E

section 200A(1) of the Act even as there was, prior to 01.6.2015, no provision for the said levy while processing a TDS return u/s. 200A(1) of the Act, which 1 ITA Nos. 911& 912/Coch/2022 (AY 2014-15) Athazhakunnu Mappilla L.P. School v. ITO came on the statute only by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. from that date. The issue

ELAVANCHALIL ABDUL BASHEER,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 310/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer .......... Appellant Oittannmakm, Koduvally, Kozhikode 673572 [Pan: Bbwpb4939D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Agriculture’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 21.12.2020 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,60,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhokode

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

TDS of Rs. 4,64,100/- was paid by the buyer of the property. Based on this information the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why the above property cannot be considered as non-agricultural land and also submitted the evidence in support of the agricultural expenditure incurred. It was stated that for failure of the assessee