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.

161 results for “TDS”+ Section 44clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,818Delhi1,757Bangalore953Chennai595Kolkata357Hyderabad221Ahmedabad215Indore186Jaipur166Cochin161Chandigarh151Karnataka150Raipur110Pune87Surat53Lucknow52Visakhapatnam51Cuttack41Rajkot39Guwahati28Nagpur27Patna24Ranchi23Agra18Dehradun17Jodhpur17Telangana17Amritsar15Kerala7SC7Himachal Pradesh6Jabalpur6Panaji5Varanasi4Uttarakhand3Rajasthan2Calcutta1J&K1

Key Topics

Limitation/Time-bar81Section 25020Section 234E20Section 4014Section 200A12Section 143(3)7TDS7Section 2635Section 69C5Section 115B

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 was duly deducted at the time of actual credit payment to individual parties 8. The AO grossly erred in making a disallowance of Rs.5,59,29,379/-towards Gas Turbine Overhauling charges u/s 31(i) of the Act. 8.1 The ld. Assessing Officer has erred in not considering the fact that repairs are done to preserve and maintain

Showing 1–20 of 161 · Page 1 of 9

...
3
Deduction3
Disallowance3

KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 78/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kerala Shipping & Inalnd Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Navigtation Corporation C.R. Building, I.S. Pres Road 38/924-A, Udaya Nagar Road Kochi 682018 Vs. Gandhi Nagar Kochi 682020 [Pan: Aabck4818L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 199Section 263Section 69Section 69C

44,87,670/- only. Thus, the assessee has declared less interest income by Rs. 64.18 Lakh but claimed credit of entire amount of TDS for Rs. 14,48,676/- as per Form 26AS. The AO without making necessary inquiry allowed the claim of the TDS credit. 5. Likewise, the learned PCIT noticed that the AO made addition

CLINT MARTEL WILFRED,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL CIT (A) BENGALURU - 12, BENGALURU

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

ITA 59/COCH/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Clint Martel Wilfred Dcit (Interational Taxation) Clint Dale, Moolankuzhy Kochi Vs. Nazreth, Ernakulam 682002 [Pan: Abnpw6970H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148

44,836/- only. However, his father expired/died in the same month i.e. May 2008, therefore the amount was not claimed. The assessee along other legal heirs made claimed for the compensation and accordingly an amount of Rs. 1,05,24,207/- after adjusting the amount of TDS was received as on 28-09-2010 in cash from the office

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT,TDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1061/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 194ASection 201Section 297

TDS in case of entities whose income is exempt under Section 10 of the IT Act. 5 AAAAL0822C LBS CENTRE 64,44

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

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

ITA 448/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 10B(3)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 195(6)Section 40

TDS being deducted by the assessee. Respectfully following the Supreme Court decision, I hold that there was no liability for the appellant to deduct tax at source u/s 195( 1) and accordingly the addition of Rs. 55,78,022/- is deleted.” 5. From the above order of the CIT(A) we observed that he has done a good reasoned order

N J THOMAS AND CO,KOTTAYAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 926/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.C.A.Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

44,140. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. On verification of ITR, Form 26AS, and submissions filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19, it was noticed that the assessee

ROSHAN FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 592/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Aug 2022AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Sri. A Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jammuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

44,179 3. 2013-14 Q3 15.01.2014 06.12.2014 325 65,000 4. 2013-14 Q4 15.05.2014 12.12.2014 211 42,200

ROSHAN FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 591/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Aug 2022AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Sri. A Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jammuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

44,179 3. 2013-14 Q3 15.01.2014 06.12.2014 325 65,000 4. 2013-14 Q4 15.05.2014 12.12.2014 211 42,200

ROSHAN FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 597/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Aug 2022AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Sri. A Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jammuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

44,179 3. 2013-14 Q3 15.01.2014 06.12.2014 325 65,000 4. 2013-14 Q4 15.05.2014 12.12.2014 211 42,200

ROSHAN FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 595/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Aug 2022AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Sri. A Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jammuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

44,179 3. 2013-14 Q3 15.01.2014 06.12.2014 325 65,000 4. 2013-14 Q4 15.05.2014 12.12.2014 211 42,200

ROSHAN FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 596/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Aug 2022AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Sri. A Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jammuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

44,179 3. 2013-14 Q3 15.01.2014 06.12.2014 325 65,000 4. 2013-14 Q4 15.05.2014 12.12.2014 211 42,200

ROSHAN FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 593/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Aug 2022AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Sri. A Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jammuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

44,179 3. 2013-14 Q3 15.01.2014 06.12.2014 325 65,000 4. 2013-14 Q4 15.05.2014 12.12.2014 211 42,200

ROSHAN FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 590/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Aug 2022AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Sri. A Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jammuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

44,179 3. 2013-14 Q3 15.01.2014 06.12.2014 325 65,000 4. 2013-14 Q4 15.05.2014 12.12.2014 211 42,200

ROSHAN FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 594/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Aug 2022AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Sri. A Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jammuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

44,179 3. 2013-14 Q3 15.01.2014 06.12.2014 325 65,000 4. 2013-14 Q4 15.05.2014 12.12.2014 211 42,200

ROSHAN FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 589/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Aug 2022AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Sri. A Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jammuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

44,179 3. 2013-14 Q3 15.01.2014 06.12.2014 325 65,000 4. 2013-14 Q4 15.05.2014 12.12.2014 211 42,200

SHRI SURESH GEORGE,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ADIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3, THIRUVANATHAPURAM

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

ITA 794/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysuresh George Asstt. Director Of Income Tax Kurichyiel House International Taxation Payippad, Harippad Vs. Thiruvananthapuram Alappuzha 690 556 [Pan:Affpg5853B]

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194JSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS certificate/s would, for example, notwithstanding the payment being made by another, issued by the employer only, and tax deducted deposited under his TAN, while in the instant case, it is the name and TAN (MUMB 08953A) of BSM that is stated (in the asseseee’s return) in respect of the Employer! Why? That apart, payment of remuneration

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 76/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahamed, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

44,140/-belatedly. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3), but the revised return filed manually on 23/04/2013 was not considered. The manual revised return of income was treated as invalid as there was no provision for manual filing. Therefore, the original return was selected for scrutiny under CASS' and assessment completed accordingly. Hence, the case was reopened u/s.147

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 77/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahamed, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

44,140/-belatedly. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3), but the revised return filed manually on 23/04/2013 was not considered. The manual revised return of income was treated as invalid as there was no provision for manual filing. Therefore, the original return was selected for scrutiny under CASS' and assessment completed accordingly. Hence, the case was reopened u/s.147

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 74/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahamed, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

44,140/-belatedly. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3), but the revised return filed manually on 23/04/2013 was not considered. The manual revised return of income was treated as invalid as there was no provision for manual filing. Therefore, the original return was selected for scrutiny under CASS' and assessment completed accordingly. Hence, the case was reopened u/s.147

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 75/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahamed, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

44,140/-belatedly. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3), but the revised return filed manually on 23/04/2013 was not considered. The manual revised return of income was treated as invalid as there was no provision for manual filing. Therefore, the original return was selected for scrutiny under CASS' and assessment completed accordingly. Hence, the case was reopened u/s.147