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.

368 results for “TDS”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,023Delhi2,821Bangalore1,359Chennai1,198Kolkata971Ahmedabad641Hyderabad589Pune374Cochin368Jaipur331Indore277Chandigarh263Karnataka223Raipur201Visakhapatnam182Cuttack181Surat168Rajkot121Nagpur93Lucknow81Amritsar73Jabalpur69Ranchi57Jodhpur50Guwahati50Dehradun45Agra39Allahabad31Panaji29Telangana29Patna28Calcutta13Kerala11Varanasi11SC9Uttarakhand2Gauhati1Rajasthan1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 25064Section 80P59Section 4050TDS40Section 201(1)39Section 153C34Deduction32Limitation/Time-bar28Section 80J24Disallowance

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

40(a)(ia) was introduced in the Finance Act w.e.f. 1/4/2013, assessee cannot claim the benefit of that because, it is deemed to be an assessee in default under the 1st proviso to sub section (1) of Section 201. Since the assessee has failed to deduct TDS

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 368 · Page 1 of 19

...
23
Addition to Income23
Section 20121
ITAT Cochin
20 Jan 2023
AY 2009-2010

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shameem Ahamed, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

TDS to the credit of Central Government during the period May,2009 to July,2009 i.e. before the due date specified i 139(1) of the Act for filing the return of Income. On such facts and circumstances the appellant submits that the provisions of section 40

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 liability. Hence the payments to USTlPL is disallowed by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In this

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 liability. Hence the payments to USTlPL is disallowed by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In this

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

section 40(a)(ia) no TDS is required to be made. 9. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR submits

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

section 40(a)(ia) no TDS is required to be made. 9. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR submits

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

section 40(a)(ia) no TDS is required to be made. 9. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR submits

SRI.V.J.FRANCIS M/S.LISCO COIR TEX,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT,, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 65/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Written submission by Smt.Lakshmi N., CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)Section 192Section 194Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act be given retrospective application. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT Appeals was not justified in sustaining the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS

SRI.V.J.FRANCIS M/S.LISCO COIR TEX,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT,, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 64/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Written submission by Smt.Lakshmi N., CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)Section 192Section 194Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act be given retrospective application. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT Appeals was not justified in sustaining the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS

M/S.RAJA &CO,PALAKKAD vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 159/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 194CSection 40

TDS made u/s. 194C of the Act came to Rs.20,03,335/- for AY 2008-09 and Rs.20,67,060/- for AY 2009-10. Since the assessee had not complied with the provisions of section 194C of the Act, disallowance u/s. 40

M/S.RAJA &CO,PALAKKAD vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 158/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 194CSection 40

TDS made u/s. 194C of the Act came to Rs.20,03,335/- for AY 2008-09 and Rs.20,67,060/- for AY 2009-10. Since the assessee had not complied with the provisions of section 194C of the Act, disallowance u/s. 40

M/S.ST.GEORGE MOTORS,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-4, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 264/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri. M.S.Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

TDS not deducted 4. Remuneration paid to 136937 Not working Mrs.Neethu partner 5. Remuneration paid to working 705754 40(b)(ii) & partner 40(b)(v) 4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition totaling to Rs.11,21,261 made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved

M/S.VIJAYA PALACE,,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

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

ITA 506/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 194ASection 40

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act. In these orders the assessment year’s involve was 2007-08 and 2008-09. In the present appeal the assessment year is 2012-13. Therefore facts are identical. In this view of the matter and following the above decisions of Jaipur Bench, we set aside and modify the orders of the authorities below

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

TDS as per the provisions contained in section 40 (a)(i) with Section 195 of the Act being the payment

THOMAS JOHN MUTHOOT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 , THIRUVALLA, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 896/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Thomas John Muthoot Dcit, Circle - 1 Muthoot Centre, Punnen Road Thiruvalla Vs. Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Abnpt4694B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das
Section 194ASection 40

TDS under the provisions of section 194A r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the Act amounting

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 194I and assessee cannot be treated to be an assessee in default in this regard. Since the provision of section 194I, in our opinion, were not applicable in the case of the assessee in respect of the said payment therefore, this issue is consequential in nature and the disallowance under section 40

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 460/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

section 40(a) (iib) of the Act any amount, as indicated, which is levied exclusively on the State owned undertaking (KSBC in the instant case), cannot be claimed as a deduction in the books of State owned undertaking, thus same is liable to income tax. Therefore, this Grounds of Appeal No.2 stands dismissed. 10. The Grounds of Appeal No.3 challenges

M/S.THOMSON INDUTRIES,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2 ,ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 196/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Ita Nos. 195 & 196/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Thomson Industries, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Thazhekkad, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Thrissur. Kochi. [Pan:Aafft 8235M]

Section 40

TDS as per section I94A of the Act. Accordingly, this sum of Rs. 1,00,13,656/- was disallowed under section 40

M/S.THOMSON INDUTRIES,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2 ,ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 195/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Ita Nos. 195 & 196/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Thomson Industries, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Thazhekkad, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Thrissur. Kochi. [Pan:Aafft 8235M]

Section 40

TDS as per section I94A of the Act. Accordingly, this sum of Rs. 1,00,13,656/- was disallowed under section 40

THE ALLEPPEY DIST CO- BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2014-2015 are

ITA 389/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.R.KrishnanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 139ASection 194ASection 194A(3)Section 197ASection 206ASection 40

TDS on the interest payment received from the assessee deductor by filing the respective form 15G or 15H with the deductor. D. The declaration under section 197A i.e. Form 15G or Form 15H shall not be valid unless the deductee furnishes PAN in the Form 15G or Form 15H respectively. Further, the deductor is required to deduct