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.

241 results for “TDS”+ Section 36clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,118Mumbai2,089Bangalore1,107Chennai807Kolkata555Ahmedabad478Hyderabad444Pune285Indore266Chandigarh249Jaipur245Cochin241Raipur182Karnataka168Visakhapatnam131Surat97Cuttack97Rajkot86Jabalpur83Lucknow72Nagpur58Ranchi43Amritsar41Guwahati38Jodhpur30Agra25Dehradun24Telangana18Allahabad17Panaji17Varanasi13Patna12SC10Kerala7Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan5Uttarakhand2Calcutta2J&K1

Key Topics

Section 25078Section 80P36TDS25Addition to Income20Limitation/Time-bar19Condonation of Delay15Section 201(1)13Section 36(1)(viia)12Section 143(3)12Deduction

M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

ITA 389/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 42

36 (l)(va) of the Income Tax Act. k) Other decisions in favour of the appellant In the following decisions, the High Courts have held that payments of Employees share of PF collected if made before the date of filing of return is sufficient compliance of section 43B of the Income Tax Act. 6 M/s. Kerala State Warehousing Corporation

Showing 1–20 of 241 · Page 1 of 13

...
12
Section 26311
Section 80P(2)(a)10

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 567/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Jose JacobFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

36(1)(v) respectively, the claim of deduction cannot be allowed. Therefore, the assessee’s grounds for both the assessment years with regard to the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of contribution made to non-recognized superannuation fund, are rejected. It is ordered accordingly.’ 4.2.3 Following the decision of jurisdictional Tribunal, as above, the disallowance of Rs.2

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 566/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Jose JacobFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

36(1)(v) respectively, the claim of deduction cannot be allowed. Therefore, the assessee’s grounds for both the assessment years with regard to the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of contribution made to non-recognized superannuation fund, are rejected. It is ordered accordingly.’ 4.2.3 Following the decision of jurisdictional Tribunal, as above, the disallowance of Rs.2

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

36 Taxman 305 However, the AO was of the opinion that that this pre- operative expenditure should go to form part of cost of plant and machinery and buildings as envisaged u/s. 43(1) of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for allowance as revenue expenditure of pre-operative expenditure ofRs.13,28,53,754/-. iv. Disallowance of excess claim

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

ITA 581/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri.Jose JacobFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

TDS without considering the fact that the said payment is only incentives paid for mobilizing deposits from its members and not a commission payment.” 11. The first ground raised in the above appeal is with reference to grant of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. We have already considered the issue in ITA No.579/Coch

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

ITA 579/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri.Jose JacobFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

TDS without considering the fact that the said payment is only incentives paid for mobilizing deposits from its members and not a commission payment.” 11. The first ground raised in the above appeal is with reference to grant of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. We have already considered the issue in ITA No.579/Coch

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

ITA 580/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sri.Jose JacobFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

TDS without considering the fact that the said payment is only incentives paid for mobilizing deposits from its members and not a commission payment.” 11. The first ground raised in the above appeal is with reference to grant of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. We have already considered the issue in ITA No.579/Coch

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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MINI MUTHOOTTU CREDIT INDIA P. LTD, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 237/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.237/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mini Muthoottu Credit India Income-Tax, Circle-1, Thiruvalla. (P) Ltd., Muthoot Building, Kozhencherry-689 641. [Pan: Aaecm 5739P]

Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

section 36(l)(iii) is attracted when the assessee borrows the capital for the purpose of his business and it does not matter whether the capital is borrowed for revenue expenditure or capital expenditure and as far as deduction of interest is concerned the key consideration is borrowing for the purpose of business. According to the Ld. AR, the land

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS(INDIA) P.LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 422/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

36(1)(iii) and Rs.25,25,000 u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. ITA No.422/Coch/2019. 2 M/s.Mangalam Publications India (P) Ltd. 3. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 15.03.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order

THEACIT, COCHIN vs. THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 522/COCH/2015[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2017

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm & (Asst Year 2010-11)) The Ernakulam Dist Coop Bank Ltd Vs The Jt Director Of Income Tax Kakkanad (Exemption) Kochi Kochi ( Appellant/Respondent) (Respondent/Appellant)

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

TDS on interest paid to various welfare boards. We shall take for adjudication the issues ground wise as under: Ground no.1: 4 The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a cooperative bank. For the Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the computation of total income

M/S.THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD,COCHIN vs. THE JT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 508/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm & (Asst Year 2010-11)) The Ernakulam Dist Coop Bank Ltd Vs The Jt Director Of Income Tax Kakkanad (Exemption) Kochi Kochi ( Appellant/Respondent) (Respondent/Appellant)

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

TDS on interest paid to various welfare boards. We shall take for adjudication the issues ground wise as under: Ground no.1: 4 The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a cooperative bank. For the Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the computation of total income

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

ITA 171/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dijo Mathew, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

TDS u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the said order, the AO had also stated that penalty proceedings u/s. 270A(1) of the Act would be initiated separately. The AO had not specifically mentioned under which limb underreporting was done by the assessee in view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case. The AO further

NEW KABLE POINT,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 268/COCH/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.C.Krishnakumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR
Section 36Section 40

section 36 of the Income Tax Act .Though a petition for rectification was filed before the CPC,CPC had directed the appellant firm to raise this contention before the assessing authority at the time of scrutiny .The learned CIT (Appeals) 3 ITA No.268/Coch/202\43. New Kable Point. failed to consider this, even though this contention was raised before

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.KUNNEL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS P. LTD, KOCHI

ITA 653/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

Section 43B

36, or (d) any sum payable by the assesses as interest on any loan or borrowing from any public financial institution or a Slate financial corporation or a State industrial investment corporation, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement governing such loan or borrowing. (e) any sum payable by the assesses as interest on loan or advances

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: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Mar 2017AY 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

section 194C of the Act. If revenue felt that Assessing Officer had taken an erroneous view with regard to application of Sec. 194C of the Act, it should have taken recourse to other remedies under the Act, to address such a situation and cannot improve its case now before us. Since assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on payments

MR.THOMAS DANIEL,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 68/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.68/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 194ASection 40Section 44A

TDS on such expenses are disallowed”. Having held so was it open to the Tribunal to seek to justify that “this fiction cannot be extended any further and, therefore, cannot be invoked by Assessing Officer to disallow the genuine and reasonable expenditure on the amounts of expenditure already paid”? Does this not amount to deliberately reading something

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

MUTHOOT HEALTHCARE P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE ACIT, , THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 413/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 170Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

36(1) applies and the depreciation has to be calculated as if there is no transfer. 19. Further, as there is no transfer, there is no cost to the assessee. Depreciation is allowable on the WDV of the asset and WDV has been defined under section 43(6) to mean In the case of assets aquired in the previous year