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.

154 results for “TDS”+ Section 36(1)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,621Delhi1,617Bangalore1,026Chennai685Kolkata354Hyderabad251Ahmedabad237Chandigarh184Jaipur172Karnataka156Cochin154Raipur92Indore88Pune84Lucknow61Visakhapatnam57Rajkot52Surat51Cuttack40Nagpur39Jabalpur28Agra24Guwahati24Jodhpur18Dehradun18Amritsar17Ranchi17Telangana15Varanasi13Allahabad12SC9Patna8Kerala7Himachal Pradesh6Panaji6Calcutta2Rajasthan2Uttarakhand2J&K1

Key Topics

Section 25099Limitation/Time-bar44TDS12Section 26311Section 143(3)9Section 1546Section 234B6Addition to Income6Section 234B(3)5Section 10(37)

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 154 · Page 1 of 8

...
5
Section 404
Rectification u/s 1544

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

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)

v. Asst. CIT, Central Circle the case may be, recomputation, u/s. 153A in March, 2013, on the increase in the assessed tax, i.e., Rs. 15,36,914, would thus range from a period of 12 months (April, 2012 to March, 2013) to 29 months (November, 2010 to March, 2013) and, thus, vary from 1

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 505/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 436/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

ABC BUILDWARES INDIA(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 454/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

A B C SALES CORPORATION ,KANNUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 404/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 504/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 457/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 458/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 497/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 498/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 499/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 500/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 502/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE-1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 501/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

ABC BUILDWARES(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1`, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 455/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

ABC BUILDWAERS INDIA (P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 456/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

MUAHAMMED JABIR,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 521/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,COCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 438/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity