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.

448 results for “TDS”+ Section 9(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,086Delhi5,036Bangalore2,524Chennai1,953Kolkata1,311Pune1,049Hyderabad689Ahmedabad643Jaipur461Cochin448Raipur422Indore381Chandigarh348Karnataka338Nagpur295Surat248Visakhapatnam221Patna220Rajkot155Lucknow130Cuttack114Amritsar113Jodhpur87Dehradun72Panaji67Agra57Jabalpur57Guwahati56Telangana53Ranchi46Allahabad37SC23Varanasi15Kerala15Calcutta14Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan7J&K3Orissa3Punjab & Haryana3Uttarakhand3Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 234E50Limitation/Time-bar48Section 206C44TDS43Section 25029Deduction20Section 4018Section 20017Section 194A17Addition to Income

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

9. At the time of arguments, the Ld.AR submitted that the penalty proceedings initiated u/s. 270A(1) and 270A(8) is not correct since the Act had used the word “may” in sub-section (1) of section 270A which means that the AO has the discretion to impose or not to impose penalty based on the facts and circumstances

Showing 1–20 of 448 · Page 1 of 23

...
16
Section 142(1)15
Section 200A15

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

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

ITA 722/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2007-08
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

section 9(1)(vii) and therefore the Tribunal had held that the issue should\nbe considered afresh and remitted the same to the AO.\n5. The AO while giving effect to the remand order of the Tribunal, had\nexamined the provision under which the payments made to the two entitles\nwould be liable to TDS

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 5.1 The Ld. AO has erred in considering reimbursement of Rs 12,68,42,880/- towards Salary and other R&D expenses within the scope of "Fee for technical Services under explanation 2 of section 9(1

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: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 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(a)(ia) cannot be invoked and the disallowance made is unjustified

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

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

ITA 720/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR
Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS. The AO also considered whether the said payments\nwould fall under the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. If the said

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

1)." 2.7 The essence of the above stated provisions and corresponding rules is that the tax deducted at source (TDS) is nothing but tax, and credit for TDS should go to the person in whose hands the income is rightfully and finally assessed to tax in accordance with law irrespective of the person in whose hands the TDS has been

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 201(1A), interest is liable for - 1% for each month from the date on which TDS was deductible to the date on which TDS was deducted; and - 1.5% for each month from the date of deduction to the date of payment. In the case of appellant, failure to deduct or short deduction means that portion of TDS

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 201(1A), interest is liable for - 1% for each month from the date on which TDS was deductible to the date on which TDS was deducted; and - 1.5% for each month from the date of deduction to the date of payment. In the case of appellant, failure to deduct or short deduction means that portion of TDS

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 201(1A), interest is liable for - 1% for each month from the date on which TDS was deductible to the date on which TDS was deducted; and - 1.5% for each month from the date of deduction to the date of payment. In the case of appellant, failure to deduct or short deduction means that portion of TDS

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 201(1A), interest is liable for - 1% for each month from the date on which TDS was deductible to the date on which TDS was deducted; and - 1.5% for each month from the date of deduction to the date of payment. In the case of appellant, failure to deduct or short deduction means that portion of TDS

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 201(1A), interest is liable for - 1% for each month from the date on which TDS was deductible to the date on which TDS was deducted; and - 1.5% for each month from the date of deduction to the date of payment. In the case of appellant, failure to deduct or short deduction means that portion of TDS

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 201(1A), interest is liable for - 1% for each month from the date on which TDS was deductible to the date on which TDS was deducted; and - 1.5% for each month from the date of deduction to the date of payment. In the case of appellant, failure to deduct or short deduction means that portion of TDS

ROSE GEORGE KOLLANUR,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V Ramnath, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

9. ICICI Bank 088358 19.09.2015 Part 972604 951 10. ICICI Bank Online 19.09.2015 TDS 9820 953 9820 Received 11. HDFC 12. ICICI Bank 088360 20.11.2015 Part 1966302 1067 18750 Received 13. ICICI Bank 088362 04.01.2016 Part 983151 1176 9375 Received 14. ICICI Bank 088363 20.01.2016 Part 983151 1198 9375 Received 15. ICICI Bank 4688 Received 545867 20.02.2016 Part

M/S ST. ALPHONSA TIMBERS & TRADERS (PVT) LTD,MARADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 888/COCH/2022[QUARTER-II 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2023

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajeev, (Adv)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234Section 234E

9. Interpreting Section 200A and Section 234E, the Karnataka High Court has held in Fatheraj that when the statute confers no express power under section 200A before 01.06.2015 on the authority either to compute and collect any fee under section 234E, the demand for the period before 01.06.2015 could not be sustained. Fatheraj in fact observes

M/S ST. ALPHONSA TIMBERS AND TRADERS (PVT) LTD,MARADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 887/COCH/2022[QUARTER-IV 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2023

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajeev, (Adv)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234Section 234E

9. Interpreting Section 200A and Section 234E, the Karnataka High Court has held in Fatheraj that when the statute confers no express power under section 200A before 01.06.2015 on the authority either to compute and collect any fee under section 234E, the demand for the period before 01.06.2015 could not be sustained. Fatheraj in fact observes

M/S.VIJAYA HOSPITALITY AND RESORTS LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADCIT(TDS), COCHIN

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

ITA 96/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Cochin24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 271CSection 273Section 273B

section 271C(1)(b) (failure to remit the tax deducted at source), despite the fact that it may be a more serious default, than the failure to deduct the tax at source.” 9.4 In the instant case, the major part of the TDS relates to remuneration to the Directors credited to the unsecured loan account. However, the TDS was payable

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 on professional and technical services. BSM is a tax resident of India, carrying on business in India, so that irrespective of the situs of rendering services, his remuneration is deemed to accrue or arise in India in terms of section 9(1

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

TDS only on a sum of Rs. 1,32,42,920/- and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source treating it as mere reimbursement of expenditure to MPCMS. The said payee, i.e. MPCMS also raised different bills. The AO was of the opinion that the money paid towards management consultancy charges under composite contract and the contract

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

TDS only on a sum of Rs. 1,32,42,920/- and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source treating it as mere reimbursement of expenditure to MPCMS. The said payee, i.e. MPCMS also raised different bills. The AO was of the opinion that the money paid towards management consultancy charges under composite contract and the contract

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

TDS only on a sum of Rs. 1,32,42,920/- and on the balance amount no tax was deducted at source treating it as mere reimbursement of expenditure to MPCMS. The said payee, i.e. MPCMS also raised different bills. The AO was of the opinion that the money paid towards management consultancy charges under composite contract and the contract