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.

9 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai291Delhi216Kolkata95Bangalore94Chennai71Ahmedabad34Hyderabad29Jaipur28Karnataka19Rajkot19Cuttack19Chandigarh14Pune9Cochin9Raipur6Patna6Surat5Lucknow4Telangana4Amritsar4Allahabad3Calcutta3Visakhapatnam3Jodhpur3Nagpur3Kerala2Indore2SC2Jabalpur1Ranchi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 20120Section 80P18Section 194H11Deduction6Section 143(3)5Disallowance5TDS5Section 80P(2)(a)4Section 1544Section 271(1)(c)

M/S.PARCO DIAGNOSTICS & REASEARCH CENTRE P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT(TDS), CALICUT

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

ITA 458/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

disallowed u/s. 37 of the I.T. Act. The learned AR, relying on Board Circular No. 5/12 dated 29/02/2016 contended that the assessee’s relationship with that of the doctors is on a principal to principal basis and provision of section 194H

M/S.PARCO DIAGNOSTICS & REASEARCH CENTRE P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT(TDS), CALICUT

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

3
Section 143(1)3
Addition to Income3
ITA 456/COCH/2016[2005-06]Status: Disposed
ITAT Cochin
08 Jun 2017
AY 2005-06

Bench: George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

disallowed u/s. 37 of the I.T. Act. The learned AR, relying on Board Circular No. 5/12 dated 29/02/2016 contended that the assessee’s relationship with that of the doctors is on a principal to principal basis and provision of section 194H

M/S.PARCO DIAGNOSTICS & REASEARCH CENTRE P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT(TDS), CALICUT

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

ITA 457/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

disallowed u/s. 37 of the I.T. Act. The learned AR, relying on Board Circular No. 5/12 dated 29/02/2016 contended that the assessee’s relationship with that of the doctors is on a principal to principal basis and provision of section 194H

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 566/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Jose JacobFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

section 194H of the Act. Hence, the disallowance of Rs.1,21,86,468 is upheld and the grounds raised on this

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 567/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Jose JacobFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

section 194H of the Act. Hence, the disallowance of Rs.1,21,86,468 is upheld and the grounds raised on this

SRI. MANZAR ALIKUNJU,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 131/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

disallowing sum of Rs 46,05,833/- under section 40 (a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act for non- deduction of tax u/s 194H

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

194H in respect of transport charges, freight charges, commission and brokerage but in respect of lease hire charges, the CIT(A) took the view that the lease hire charges, as mentioned by the assessee in the profit & loss account, in substance does not represent the lease rent of the land but it represents consideration paid for extraction of the sand

SIVARAMAPILLAI ANILKUMAR,KOLLAM vs. ITO,W-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 893/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sivaramanpillai Anilkumar .......... Appellant A.S. Communications, Chathannoor Kollam 691572 [Pan: Agrpa1890K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(3), Trivandurm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 250(6)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

disallowance while framing the assessment order. On appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. It is the settled position of law that even in the case of an exparte order passed by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. In the grounds of appeal

MRS SHABANA AKBAR,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO WARD 1(4), KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 612/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao. CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194H

section 194H and also issued credit notes. When appellant pointed out that the TDS provisions are not applicable on such incentives, the principal stopped deducting TDS from June 2018. It was not correct for the Commissioner (Appeals). NFAC to ignore the purchase agreement and credit notes filed by the appellant in support of the claim and confirm the addition made