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.

249 results for “TDS”+ Section 33clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,041Mumbai1,996Bangalore1,205Chennai693Kolkata490Ahmedabad467Hyderabad451Pune276Indore267Raipur256Chandigarh251Jaipur250Cochin249Karnataka166Visakhapatnam120Cuttack89Rajkot88Surat81Nagpur74Lucknow61Jabalpur59Ranchi36Jodhpur33Amritsar32Agra28Dehradun26Guwahati25Allahabad18Telangana14Patna12Kerala12SC11Panaji8Varanasi6Calcutta5Uttarakhand2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 25080Section 20027Section 206C27Section 19227Limitation/Time-bar27Addition to Income23TDS22Section 20113Section 4011Section 263

ITO, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.SOUTHERN MINERAL INDUSTRIES,, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 370/COCH/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

Section 194CSection 194ISection 201

TDS under section 194C, 194H and 194I of the Act and also created the demand and levied interest under section 201(1A) vide order dated 25/03/2011. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) treated the assessee in default under section 194C and 194H in respect of transport charges, freight charges, commission and brokerage

M/S AC CARGO MANAGEMENT P.LTD,,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 320/COCH/2013[2007-08]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 249 · Page 1 of 13

...
10
Section 234E9
Disallowance9
ITAT Cochin
23 Mar 2017
AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri George George. K.] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 320/Coch/2013. िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008. Vs. M/S. Ac Cargo Management The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd, Ward 1(1) 1St Floor, Chacko Chambers, Kochi Civil Lines Road, Palarivattom, Kochi 682 025. [Pan Aaeca 2206K] (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" (ू"यथ" ू"यथ" ू"यथ"/Respondent) ू"यथ"

For Appellant: Shri. R. Krishnan, C.A
Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 40

33 of the Act clearly differentiate ships, machinery and plant. 14. having examined clause(c ) Explanation-Ill of section 194-C, it, prima facie, clarifies that the expression “work” means carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport other than by railways and freight payments have to be deducted under this section and not under section 194I

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

33,77,497/- the appellant had deducted 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

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

33,77,497/- the appellant had deducted 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

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

33,77,497/- the appellant had deducted 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

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

33,77,497/- the appellant had deducted 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

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 489/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santhom Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 156Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

section 2 33,32,307 36(1)(va) of the Act on late ITA No.489/Coch/2016 & SA 60/Coch/2017. 4 M/s.Allianz Cornhill International Services Pvt.Ltd. payment of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI 3. Erroneous imputation of 4 interest on amounts which are not in the nature of loan 4. Erroneous granting of credit 5 period which is short

PALLATH NAFEESA,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, TIRUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee allowed

ITA 118/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Pallath Nafeesa The Income Tax Officer Poolakkodan House Tirur Athirumada, Punnathala Vs. Tirur, Malappuram 676552 [Pan: Alipn9300R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Paulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 10(37)Section 145ASection 194ASection 197Section 28Section 34Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

TDS reported in70 taxmann.com 45. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Bench is extracted as under: “10. In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that the interest on which the tax is sought to be deducted at source under section 194A of the Act is interest under section

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 475/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

TDS with the Government. 27. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the Section, is required to be read into the Section to give the Section a reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 134/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

TDS with the Government. 27. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the Section, is required to be read into the Section to give the Section a reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1000/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

TDS deducted and Page 5 of 7 the final tax demand as per the order under section 154 (page 33

M/S.VENNALA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, KOCHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee was rejected by the CIT(A) for assessment year under consideration

ITA 129/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 154Section 19Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 234ASection 250Section 40Section 80P

section 194A(3)(v) and 194A(3)(viia)(a), the appellant is not liable to deduct TDS on interest payments. The assessing 2 M/s.The Vennala SCB Ltd. officer erred in making additions u/s. 40(a)(ia) for not deducting TDS. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in not considering this ground. 3. Appellant is eligible for deduction

M/S.KADUNA HOSPITALITY P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

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

ITA 500/COCH/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 145ASection 45Section 45(5)(b)Section 48

TDS 3,009,047 20,3,33,836 31-03-2014 Total 32,625,989 32,625,989 8.5 Section

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. 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

M/S.PARCO DIAGNOSTICS & REASEARCH CENTRE P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT(TDS), CALICUT

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

ITA 458/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS), Kozhikode. Meenchanda, Kozhikode. [PAN:AABCP 3576A] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Revenue by Shri C. Suresh Kumar, CA Assessee by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 08/06/2017 O R D E R Per GEORGE GEORGE K.,JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the consolidated order

M/S.PARCO DIAGNOSTICS & REASEARCH CENTRE P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT(TDS), CALICUT

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

ITA 456/COCH/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS), Kozhikode. Meenchanda, Kozhikode. [PAN:AABCP 3576A] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Revenue by Shri C. Suresh Kumar, CA Assessee by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 08/06/2017 O R D E R Per GEORGE GEORGE K.,JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the consolidated order

M/S.PARCO DIAGNOSTICS & REASEARCH CENTRE P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT(TDS), CALICUT

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

ITA 457/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS), Kozhikode. Meenchanda, Kozhikode. [PAN:AABCP 3576A] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Revenue by Shri C. Suresh Kumar, CA Assessee by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 08/06/2017 O R D E R Per GEORGE GEORGE K.,JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the consolidated order

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 989/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned fee stands pointed out by the assessee, and neither is there any reference thereto in the assessee

COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT EXAMINATIONS ,POOJAPPURA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 985/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 192Section 200Section 206CSection 234E

33,200 5.2 The default of the delayed filing of the TDS returns/statements for the relevant quarters is admitted. As also stated more than once by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, no mistake in the computation of the impugned fee stands pointed out by the assessee, and neither is there any reference thereto in the assessee