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.

13 results for “TDS”+ Section 11clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,676Delhi4,623Bangalore2,378Chennai1,707Kolkata1,197Pune885Hyderabad604Ahmedabad563Jaipur407Indore370Raipur350Karnataka333Cochin304Chandigarh280Nagpur250Visakhapatnam179Surat166Rajkot131Lucknow125Cuttack70Jodhpur66Patna58Ranchi54Amritsar52Dehradun48Agra45Telangana44Panaji41Guwahati38Jabalpur22SC21Allahabad15Calcutta13Kerala13Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Varanasi5J&K3Punjab & Haryana3Uttarakhand3Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 4011TDS6Deduction5Section 41(1)4Section 9(1)(vii)3Section 194C3Section 194H3Section 69C3Section 143(1)(a)2Section 10A

SUDARSANAN P.S vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/70/2017HC Kerala06 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 194Section 194CSection 194HSection 260ASection 40Section 69C

TDS under Section 194C of the Act. We hold that the assessee was entitled to deduct the aforesaid sum even though tax had not been deducted at source. 11

M/S.CARBON AND CHEMICALS (INDIA) LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KOCHI

2
Disallowance2
Addition to Income2
ITR/70/2000
HC Kerala
01 Mar 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX
Section 143(1)(a)Section 201Section 256(1)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

TDS and interest paid, was written back by the assessee into its accounts, on account of the cessation of liability. To state in figures, the assessee had written back Rs.30,68,152/- instead of Rs.53,71,650/-. 3. In the return filed for the AY 1995-96, assessee had thus written back only Rs.30,68,152/- under Section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

ITA/18/2017HC Kerala23 Jun 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 143(2)Section 260A

11 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ernakulam. The CIT (Appeals), through Annexure-B Order dated 04.06.2013, allowed the appeal and the Revenue filed I.T.A. No. 512/COCH/2013 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin. Through Annexure-C Order dated 25.10.2016 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the appeal. The appellant raises the following substantial questions

POPULAR PRINTERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

ITA/233/2019HC Kerala09 Jun 2020

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

For Appellant: M/S.POPULAR DEALERSFor Respondent: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1942 ITA.No.233 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 327/COCH/2018 DATED 18.02.2019 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: POPULAR PRINTERS POPULAR TOWERS, VAKAYAR.P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED

M/S. POPULAR TRADERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/210/2019HC Kerala09 Jun 2020

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

For Appellant: M/S.POPULAR DEALERSFor Respondent: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1942 ITA.No.233 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 327/COCH/2018 DATED 18.02.2019 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: POPULAR PRINTERS POPULAR TOWERS, VAKAYAR.P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED

POPULAR DEALERS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

ITA/224/2019HC Kerala09 Jun 2020

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

For Appellant: M/S.POPULAR DEALERSFor Respondent: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1942 ITA.No.233 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 327/COCH/2018 DATED 18.02.2019 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: POPULAR PRINTERS POPULAR TOWERS, VAKAYAR.P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED

M/S. DEVICE DRIVEN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/257/2014HC Kerala13 Oct 2020

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(1)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS) [(2010) 321 ITR 31 (Karn)] the Karnataka High Court held that the effect of the Supreme Court decision in Ishikawajima had not been obliterated. Insofar as how the explanation has to be construed, reliance has been placed on Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. v. CIT [(2015) 279 ITR 310 (SC)]. 5. Section 195 casts a liability on the person

M/S. APPOLLO TYRES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/249/2015HC Kerala26 Aug 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. A mere provision of expenditure is not allowable as expenditure inasmuch as the assessee has not suffered actual expenditure on account of the said commission payable to the agents. The conclusion and reasoning of the Assessing Officer was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal independently examined the tenability

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

ITA/56/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

11) The amendment took effect from 1 April, 1995 and accordingly applied, in relation to the assessment year 1995-96 and subsequent years. But till that amendment in 1995, and therefore covering the assessment year in question, the law as perceived by the Department was that if the cost of acquisition of a capital asset could not in fact

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT.GRACY BABU,

ITA/54/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

11) The amendment took effect from 1 April, 1995 and accordingly applied, in relation to the assessment year 1995-96 and subsequent years. But till that amendment in 1995, and therefore covering the assessment year in question, the law as perceived by the Department was that if the cost of acquisition of a capital asset could not in fact

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

ITA/47/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

11) The amendment took effect from 1 April, 1995 and accordingly applied, in relation to the assessment year 1995-96 and subsequent years. But till that amendment in 1995, and therefore covering the assessment year in question, the law as perceived by the Department was that if the cost of acquisition of a capital asset could not in fact

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. GRACY BABU,

ITA/48/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

11) The amendment took effect from 1 April, 1995 and accordingly applied, in relation to the assessment year 1995-96 and subsequent years. But till that amendment in 1995, and therefore covering the assessment year in question, the law as perceived by the Department was that if the cost of acquisition of a capital asset could not in fact

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

ITA/46/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

11) The amendment took effect from 1 April, 1995 and accordingly applied, in relation to the assessment year 1995-96 and subsequent years. But till that amendment in 1995, and therefore covering the assessment year in question, the law as perceived by the Department was that if the cost of acquisition of a capital asset could not in fact