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.

481 results for “TDS”+ Section 8(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,334Delhi5,329Bangalore2,567Chennai2,021Kolkata1,445Pune1,064Hyderabad763Ahmedabad729Indore563Patna547Cochin481Jaipur473Raipur443Chandigarh355Karnataka349Nagpur326Surat259Visakhapatnam234Rajkot180Lucknow150Amritsar128Cuttack105Jodhpur100Dehradun95Panaji65Agra62Ranchi62Guwahati61Jabalpur59Telangana51Allahabad38SC23Varanasi17Kerala15Calcutta14Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan7Punjab & Haryana3J&K3Uttarakhand3Orissa3Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

TDS79Section 234E60Limitation/Time-bar47Section 206C38Section 25029Section 80P24Deduction19Section 200A18Section 4017Section 194A

VADAKKEVILA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 478/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms.Anoopa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

8. The assessee's 6th to 8th substantive grounds have been contested by the department in light of Totagar's Cooperative Sale Society Ltd., vs. ITO [2010] 322 ITR 283 (SC) and Pr. CIT & Anr. vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society [2017] 395 ITR 611 (Kar.) that such an interest income from deposits in cooperative bank(s) is not eligible

Showing 1–20 of 481 · Page 1 of 25

...
17
Section 143(3)15
Addition to Income14

THE KAREEPPA PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.D,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 732/COCH/2023[AY-2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Anoopa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 40Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

8 Kareeppa Panchayat Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. \ of Section 80P is to exclude only co-operative banks that function on par with other commercial banks i.e. which lend money to members of the public. That on a reading of Section 3 read with Section 56 of the BR Act, 1949, the primary co-operative bank cannot be a primary

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 211/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

Section 8 of that Act. Hence, the employees of the appellant are eligible for deduction u/s 80C for the contributions made to the provident fund. This deduction may be allowed in the computation of the total income of the employees of the appellant and the liability for short deduction of TDS is liable to be set aside. 2

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 209/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

Section 8 of that Act. Hence, the employees of the appellant are eligible for deduction u/s 80C for the contributions made to the provident fund. This deduction may be allowed in the computation of the total income of the employees of the appellant and the liability for short deduction of TDS is liable to be set aside. 2

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 207/COCH/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

Section 8 of that Act. Hence, the employees of the appellant are eligible for deduction u/s 80C for the contributions made to the provident fund. This deduction may be allowed in the computation of the total income of the employees of the appellant and the liability for short deduction of TDS is liable to be set aside. 2

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 212/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

Section 8 of that Act. Hence, the employees of the appellant are eligible for deduction u/s 80C for the contributions made to the provident fund. This deduction may be allowed in the computation of the total income of the employees of the appellant and the liability for short deduction of TDS is liable to be set aside. 2

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 208/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

Section 8 of that Act. Hence, the employees of the appellant are eligible for deduction u/s 80C for the contributions made to the provident fund. This deduction may be allowed in the computation of the total income of the employees of the appellant and the liability for short deduction of TDS is liable to be set aside. 2

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 210/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

Section 8 of that Act. Hence, the employees of the appellant are eligible for deduction u/s 80C for the contributions made to the provident fund. This deduction may be allowed in the computation of the total income of the employees of the appellant and the liability for short deduction of TDS is liable to be set aside. 2

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

TDS reported in70 taxmann.com 45. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Bench is extracted as under: “10. In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that the interest on which the tax is sought to be deducted at source under section 194A of the Act is interest under section

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

ITA 171/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dijo Mathew, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

8) of the Act. The sub-clause (9) of 270A also deals about the six occasions of misreporting of income and because of that the underreporting of income was made. Therefore both the provisions of sub-section (2) as well as sub-section (9) of section 270A gave different types of underreporting as well as misreporting of income. Inspite

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

TDS credit of his deceased wife (admittedly income of the same was offered to tax in assessee’s return of income). The relevant statutory provision, namely Section 199 of the Act and Rule 37BA of the I.T. Rules, 1962 reads as follows: - “Credit for tax deducted. 199. (1) Any deduction made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR vs. KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue ITA No

ITA 600/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavban, Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 Vs. Kannur Building Materials Co-Op. Society Ltd .......... Respondent No. C 1741, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur 670561 [Pan: Aaaak7151K]

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 40Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

section 80(P)(2)(a)(vi) i.e., collective disposal of labour of the members of the society. 5.5 In this regard, based on the facts narrated above, I hold that the appellant is not eligible to claim 80(P)(2)(a)(vi) of the Act. 5.6 In Ground no. 4 of the appeal, appellant has taken the plea that

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

ITA 1016/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Anjana A, (Adv)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

TDS for the amount paid to the collection agents and for the maintenance charges which amounts to Rs.8,07,914/-. The deduction u/s 80P of the Act was disallowed by AO mainly 4. on the ground that the assessee is mainly in to banking business and not providing advances/credit for agriculture and Rural Development Activities. According

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

ITA 1017/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Anjana A, (Adv)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

TDS for the amount paid to the collection agents and for the maintenance charges which amounts to Rs.8,07,914/-. The deduction u/s 80P of the Act was disallowed by AO mainly 4. on the ground that the assessee is mainly in to banking business and not providing advances/credit for agriculture and Rural Development Activities. According

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

ITA 1015/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Anjana A, (Adv)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

TDS for the amount paid to the collection agents and for the maintenance charges which amounts to Rs.8,07,914/-. The deduction u/s 80P of the Act was disallowed by AO mainly 4. on the ground that the assessee is mainly in to banking business and not providing advances/credit for agriculture and Rural Development Activities. According

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. NEDUMATTOM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,IDUKKI vs. THE ITO, THODUPIZHA

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

ITA 189/COCH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

8. The PCIT failed to note that the assessing officer had conducted the necessary enquiry and considered the reply/details furnished by the appellant and granted 3 ITA No.189/Coch/2021. M/s.Nedumattom SCB Limited. deduction under section 80 P of the Act. The finding of the PCIT that no details were called for by the assessing officer regarding interest is erroneous and factually

ELAVANCHALIL ABDUL BASHEER,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

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

ITA 310/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer .......... Appellant Oittannmakm, Koduvally, Kozhikode 673572 [Pan: Bbwpb4939D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Agriculture’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 21.12.2020 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,60,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhokode

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

2 10.02.2020 3,93,700 Survey Number 143/34 Kattippara Village, Thamarassery, Kozhikode 3 Property: 3 02.04.2019 4,64,10,000 Re Survey Number 90/3 Thrikaipetta Village, Meppadi, Wayanad 4 Property: 4 03.02.2020 13.190,000 Survey Number 140/1 Kattippara Village, Thamarassery, Kozhikode After claiming expenditure of Rs. 49,24,950/- the balance amount of Rs.4,60,00,000/- was claimed

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 2022AY 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)

2 —Without prejudice, interest on delayed payment of service tax/ VAT/ TDS is an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act 2.1 On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned PCIT has erred in concluding that, interest on delayed payment of service tax/ VAT/ TDS amounting

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

2) of the Act. Since the Assessee had failed to deduct tax under the said section, the Assessee has been treated as ‘Assessee is in default’ and was directed to pay INR.1,52,13,509/- under section 201(1) and interest of INR.69,98,214/- under section 201(1A) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before