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.

225 results for “TDS”+ Section 37clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,340Mumbai2,324Bangalore1,107Chennai826Kolkata530Ahmedabad480Hyderabad448Pune299Jaipur274Chandigarh273Indore255Cochin225Karnataka192Raipur174Visakhapatnam132Surat110Cuttack90Rajkot82Lucknow70Jabalpur56Ranchi43Guwahati41Amritsar36Nagpur36Agra33Patna29Jodhpur29Allahabad21Dehradun18Telangana17Panaji11Calcutta10SC10Varanasi7Kerala6Uttarakhand3J&K2Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 25079Section 80P36Limitation/Time-bar22Section 201(1)17Addition to Income16Section 20114TDS14Deduction13Section 4012Section 271C

THE ITO, WARD-2(1), TVM, TVM vs. SMT.G.S.LEKHA, KOLLAM

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

ITA 194/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.194/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 10(37)Section 2(14)(iii)

TDS) (187 Taxman 1). Thus, he brought to tax a sum of Rs.1,65,31,119/- as long term capital gain. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that section 10 of the Act provides for income which cannot be included in the total income. Section 10(37

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PR CIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 5/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Dec 2022

Showing 1–20 of 225 · Page 1 of 12

...
12
Section 80P(2)(a)11
Section 26310
AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Asianet Satellite Vs. Pcit, Communications Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. 2A, 2Nd Floor, Carnival Technopark, Technopark, Kazhakuttom, Karyavattom, P. O., Thiruvananthapuram. Pan : Aaeca 5548 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

TDS as deductible expenses under section 37(1) of the Act, considering the payment to be compensatory in nature. Ground

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

37 of the Income Tax Act, in any case. The addition made by the AO leads to addition to the taxable income of the appellant of the entire amount. 5. The learned AO has erred in disallowing the claim of Rs 14,06,31,409/- u/s 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS 5.1 The Ld. AO has erred

GEORGE KOCHUPARAMBIL, PROP. UNITED GRANITES & METALS,THODUPUZHA vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

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

ITA 190/COCH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Juduicial Member & Ms. Padmavathy Sshri George Kochuparambil Kochuparambil House Dcit/Acit, Central Vazhithala P.O. Vs. Circle Thodupuzha Kochi Idukki 685583 Pan – Afjpk9650E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri M. Jarasekhar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2023

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Jarasekhar, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

37 of the Act amounting to Rs.41,41,053/- in the original assessment proceedings. He submitted that initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act is uncalled for as all the necessary details were furnished by the assessee to the AO based on which the assessment order has been passed. He placed reliance on the decision

INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. MUTHOOT HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOZHENCHERRY

Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the same. Thus, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 517/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Thomson Thomas, CA
Section 192Section 194Section 194(2)Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

TDS under Section 194J. The determination hinges on whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the appellant and the doctors. 3 Assessment Year 2018-2019 5.2 It is a well-established principle in income tax law that the nature of payment is determined by the substance of the relationship between the payer and the payee, rather than merely the nomenclature

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

37) of the Actor chargeable to tax as income from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the Act. In this regard we note that the issue on hand is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai

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)

TDS u/s 194C—AO held that payment made by assessee to K falls within purview of Explanation (a) to section 194J and there was short deduction of tax-CIT(A) affirmed findings of AO—Held, provisions of Explanation (a) to section 1943 and Notifications issued by Board suggest that services rendered by other notified professions for purpose of section 44AA

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)

37 of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the amount of Rs.1,21,86,468 paid to Primary banks by erroneously treating the said payment as commission and disallowing the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

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)

37 of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the amount of Rs.1,21,86,468 paid to Primary banks by erroneously treating the said payment as commission and disallowing the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

MR. PREM MUKUNDAN ,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 790/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George George K. (Judicial Member), Ms. Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 192Section 199Section 250

section 154 of the Act ought to have been entertained by the Revenue. 10. In this regard, learned DR also made submission that the decision of the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, was in relation to provisions of Rule 37BA of the Rules which is applicable to TDS and not to TCS and it is only Rule 37

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 464/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

section 263 was handed over to me by the assessee. I was under the impression that ITA No.116 & 464/Coch/2019 4 Sri.Sahadevan K. the appeal has to be filed only against the assessment order giving effect to the revision order. The assessee was under the impression that I had already filed the appeal. The non filing of the appeal was noticed

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 116/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

section 263 was handed over to me by the assessee. I was under the impression that ITA No.116 & 464/Coch/2019 4 Sri.Sahadevan K. the appeal has to be filed only against the assessment order giving effect to the revision order. The assessee was under the impression that I had already filed the appeal. The non filing of the appeal was noticed

MOHAMED MUSTHAFA KUNNATH CHENGAANA,CALICUT vs. ITO,WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 671/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.P.Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 18Section 2(14)

37,161. The State Government, however, filed an appeal before the High Court against the judgment. However, the Land Acquisition Officer released 50% enhanced compensation after deducting TDS and the appellant’s share of 1/9th of Rs.47,46,504 was brought to tax as business profit of the appellant, by the AO. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order

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.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)

37 of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the amount of Rs.46,43,961 paid to Primary banks by erroneously treating the said payment as commission and disallowing the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

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)

37 of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the amount of Rs.46,43,961 paid to Primary banks by erroneously treating the said payment as commission and disallowing the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

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)

37 of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the amount of Rs.46,43,961 paid to Primary banks by erroneously treating the said payment as commission and disallowing the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

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

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

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.TIME ADS & PUBLICITY, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 226/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

section s. 37(1), case law on which is legion. Purchase of goods being traded, for example, would be a direct cost of goods sold, deductible u/s. 37(1). The assessee, in fact, while canvassing so, contradicts itself inasmuch as tax on impugned sums has been deducted and deposited on 29.6.2009, which would entitle it to deduction in respect