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.

119 results for “TDS”+ Section 92clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,250Delhi1,194Bangalore599Kolkata298Chennai292Ahmedabad265Indore202Chandigarh170Pune156Hyderabad151Jaipur147Karnataka122Cochin119Raipur99Cuttack67Visakhapatnam63Jabalpur57Nagpur41Rajkot39Surat30Guwahati28Lucknow22Amritsar19Jodhpur18Allahabad13Ranchi13Patna12Telangana11Agra10Varanasi6SC5Panaji3Calcutta2Kerala1Rajasthan1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 25094Section 153C40Section 201(1)40Addition to Income31Section 271C30Section 234E22Section 20120Section 15317TDS13Penalty

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 236/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 272ASection 272A(2)

TDS Central Processing Zone, Ghaziabad imposed fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per intimations u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as under:- Financial Quarter Amount levied u/s. 234E Date of intimation Year No. 2012-13 Q2 Rs. 11,250/- 20.11.2015 2012-13 Q3 Rs. 15,000/- 20.11.2015 2012-13 Q4 Rs.2

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

Showing 1–20 of 119 · Page 1 of 6

12
Section 194J11
Search & Seizure8

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

ITA 241/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

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

Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 272ASection 272A(2)

TDS Central Processing Zone, Ghaziabad imposed fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per intimations u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as under:- Financial Quarter Amount levied u/s. 234E Date of intimation Year No. 2012-13 Q2 Rs. 11,250/- 20.11.2015 2012-13 Q3 Rs. 15,000/- 20.11.2015 2012-13 Q4 Rs.2

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 242/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

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

Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 272ASection 272A(2)

TDS Central Processing Zone, Ghaziabad imposed fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per intimations u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as under:- Financial Quarter Amount levied u/s. 234E Date of intimation Year No. 2012-13 Q2 Rs. 11,250/- 20.11.2015 2012-13 Q3 Rs. 15,000/- 20.11.2015 2012-13 Q4 Rs.2

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 240/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

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

Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 272ASection 272A(2)

TDS Central Processing Zone, Ghaziabad imposed fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per intimations u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as under:- Financial Quarter Amount levied u/s. 234E Date of intimation Year No. 2012-13 Q2 Rs. 11,250/- 20.11.2015 2012-13 Q3 Rs. 15,000/- 20.11.2015 2012-13 Q4 Rs.2

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 239/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

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

Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 272ASection 272A(2)

TDS Central Processing Zone, Ghaziabad imposed fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per intimations u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as under:- Financial Quarter Amount levied u/s. 234E Date of intimation Year No. 2012-13 Q2 Rs. 11,250/- 20.11.2015 2012-13 Q3 Rs. 15,000/- 20.11.2015 2012-13 Q4 Rs.2

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

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

ITA 238/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 272ASection 272A(2)

TDS Central Processing Zone, Ghaziabad imposed fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per intimations u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as under:- Financial Quarter Amount levied u/s. 234E Date of intimation Year No. 2012-13 Q2 Rs. 11,250/- 20.11.2015 2012-13 Q3 Rs. 15,000/- 20.11.2015 2012-13 Q4 Rs.2

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

M/S.TRANS MARINE CORPORATION,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, WD-2(5) NON- CORPORATE, KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 520/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year:2012-13

Section 144Section 144oSection 145(3)

92,267.80 125496526.0 Other direct Expenses 482550.8 13,69,473 1852023.8 Gross Profit 3617213.7 56,800 56,800 52,01,460.7 It was explained that there were some discrepancy in the audited accounts filed and informed that the actual gross receipt and expenses shown in the P&L account was not correct, the actual receipt and expenses was less than

MUHAMMAD ALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 23/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153C

92,990/-. Subsequently, during the course of search and seizure proceedings under the provisions of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the case of Malabar Group of concerns, the AO of the said group recorded satisfaction that the assessee received undisclosed income from the said Malabar group of companies in the form of return

MUHAMMAD ALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 27/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153C

92,990/-. Subsequently, during the course of search and seizure proceedings under the provisions of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the case of Malabar Group of concerns, the AO of the said group recorded satisfaction that the assessee received undisclosed income from the said Malabar group of companies in the form of return

MOHAMMAD ALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 24/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153C

92,990/-. Subsequently, during the course of search and seizure proceedings under the provisions of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the case of Malabar Group of concerns, the AO of the said group recorded satisfaction that the assessee received undisclosed income from the said Malabar group of companies in the form of return

MOHAMMAD ALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 26/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153C

92,990/-. Subsequently, during the course of search and seizure proceedings under the provisions of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the case of Malabar Group of concerns, the AO of the said group recorded satisfaction that the assessee received undisclosed income from the said Malabar group of companies in the form of return

MUHAMMADALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 14/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153C

92,990/-. Subsequently, during the course of search and seizure proceedings under the provisions of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the case of Malabar Group of concerns, the AO of the said group recorded satisfaction that the assessee received undisclosed income from the said Malabar group of companies in the form of return

MOHAMMAD ALI,KOZHIKODE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRE CIRCLE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 25/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153C

92,990/-. Subsequently, during the course of search and seizure proceedings under the provisions of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the case of Malabar Group of concerns, the AO of the said group recorded satisfaction that the assessee received undisclosed income from the said Malabar group of companies in the form of return

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 613/COCH/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink charges involve

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 608/COCH/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink charges involve

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 615/COCH/2010[09-Aug]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink charges involve

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 611/COCH/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink charges involve

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 610/COCH/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink charges involve