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.

218 results for “TDS”+ Section 36(1)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,552Mumbai1,535Bangalore764Chennai543Kolkata354Ahmedabad326Hyderabad252Cochin218Chandigarh217Pune184Jaipur181Karnataka154Indore133Raipur99Visakhapatnam92Cuttack66Lucknow55Rajkot51Surat51Nagpur36Guwahati28Jabalpur27Amritsar24Agra24Jodhpur21Ranchi20Dehradun17Telangana14Allahabad12Varanasi11SC10Patna8Panaji7Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan5Kerala5Uttarakhand2J&K1

Key Topics

Section 25078Section 201(1)35TDS34Condonation of Delay25Limitation/Time-bar17Addition to Income15Section 4011Section 271C9Section 2638Section 143(3)

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(1)(iii) prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2003, in relation to money borrowed for purchase of machinery even though the assessee had not used the machinery in the year of borrowing. Decision of the Gujarat High Court in Deputy CIT v Core Health Care Ltd. [2001]251 ITR 61 affirmed on this point. Held also, remanding

Showing 1–20 of 218 · Page 1 of 11

...
7
Section 1946
Section 2016

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

iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income. iv) and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed. This proviso is applicable from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards”. 6.5 The Ld. DR submitted that the resident payee, M/s Popular Traders

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.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

TDS - Large other expenses claimed in the Profit and Loss Account. n) The Assessing officer after examining reasons for selecting the return for limited scrutiny based on the records and submissions made by the assessee accepted the return and completed the Limited scrutiny by order dated 27.10.2017 without any adjustment to the loss as returned. o) The reason for initiation

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.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)

1) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as a deducted in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid." 24. Thus, the Finance Act, 2010 further relaxed the rigors of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act to provide that all TDS made during the previous year can be deposited with

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)

1) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as a deducted in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid." 24. Thus, the Finance Act, 2010 further relaxed the rigors of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act to provide that all TDS made during the previous year can be deposited with

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

iii), in some cases, higher corporate tax has been paid to the extent of Rs.906.52 lakhs."(sic-para 36) The said principle on which the penalty under section 271C was avoided, would also not apply in the present case. In the circumstances, we are not convinced that there could be any remand, by the Tribunal, as has been made

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

iii), in some cases, higher corporate tax has been paid to the extent of Rs.906.52 lakhs."(sic-para 36) The said principle on which the penalty under section 271C was avoided, would also not apply in the present case. In the circumstances, we are not convinced that there could be any remand, by the Tribunal, as has been made

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

iii), in some cases, higher corporate tax has been paid to the extent of Rs.906.52 lakhs."(sic-para 36) The said principle on which the penalty under section 271C was avoided, would also not apply in the present case. In the circumstances, we are not convinced that there could be any remand, by the Tribunal, as has been made

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

iii), in some cases, higher corporate tax has been paid to the extent of Rs.906.52 lakhs."(sic-para 36) The said principle on which the penalty under section 271C was avoided, would also not apply in the present case. In the circumstances, we are not convinced that there could be any remand, by the Tribunal, as has been made

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

iii), in some cases, higher corporate tax has been paid to the extent of Rs.906.52 lakhs."(sic-para 36) The said principle on which the penalty under section 271C was avoided, would also not apply in the present case. In the circumstances, we are not convinced that there could be any remand, by the Tribunal, as has been made

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

iii), in some cases, higher corporate tax has been paid to the extent of Rs.906.52 lakhs."(sic-para 36) The said principle on which the penalty under section 271C was avoided, would also not apply in the present case. In the circumstances, we are not convinced that there could be any remand, by the Tribunal, as has been made

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

iii), in some cases, higher corporate tax has been paid to the extent of Rs.906.52 lakhs."(sic-para 36) The said principle on which the penalty under section 271C was avoided, would also not apply in the present case. In the circumstances, we are not convinced that there could be any remand, by the Tribunal, as has been made

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

iii), in some cases, higher corporate tax has been paid to the extent of Rs.906.52 lakhs."(sic-para 36) The said principle on which the penalty under section 271C was avoided, would also not apply in the present case. In the circumstances, we are not convinced that there could be any remand, by the Tribunal, as has been made

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

iii), in some cases, higher corporate tax has been paid to the extent of Rs.906.52 lakhs."(sic-para 36) The said principle on which the penalty under section 271C was avoided, would also not apply in the present case. In the circumstances, we are not convinced that there could be any remand, by the Tribunal, as has been made

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

iii), in some cases, higher corporate tax has been paid to the extent of Rs.906.52 lakhs."(sic-para 36) The said principle on which the penalty under section 271C was avoided, would also not apply in the present case. In the circumstances, we are not convinced that there could be any remand, by the Tribunal, as has been made

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)

TDS, Adv. Tax or self-assessment tax is deemed to be given.’ The same stood confirmed in first appeal; the ld. CIT(A) holding as: ‘In the present case, assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was passed for the A.Y 2010-11 on 28.3.2013. The appellate order was passed on 16.2.2016. The order of the Assessing Officer merged with

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