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 11(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,672Delhi4,618Bangalore2,377Chennai1,707Kolkata1,193Pune885Hyderabad604Ahmedabad563Jaipur407Indore370Raipur350Karnataka308Cochin304Chandigarh280Nagpur261Surat207Visakhapatnam179Rajkot144Lucknow125Cuttack91Amritsar76Jodhpur66Patna60Ranchi54Dehradun52Agra45Telangana44Panaji41Guwahati38Jabalpur22SC21Allahabad15Calcutta13Kerala13Himachal Pradesh8Varanasi7Rajasthan6J&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

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

3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)". 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

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

3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)". 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

2
Disallowance2
Addition to Income2

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

3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)". 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

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

3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)". 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

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

3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)". 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

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

3. Whether the addition of Rs.8,86,790/- made by the assessing officer as affirmed by the Tribunal on account of disallowing the claim under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-payment of TDS under ITA NO. 70 OF 2017 4 Section 194H of the Act is justified. 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in restoring

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

3 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.212 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 325/COCH/2018 DATED 18-02-2019 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: M/S.POPULAR PRINTERS, POPULAR TOWERS, VAKAYAR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA

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

3 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.212 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 325/COCH/2018 DATED 18-02-2019 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: M/S.POPULAR PRINTERS, POPULAR TOWERS, VAKAYAR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA

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

3 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.212 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 325/COCH/2018 DATED 18-02-2019 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: M/S.POPULAR PRINTERS, POPULAR TOWERS, VAKAYAR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA

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

ITR/70/2000HC Kerala01 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

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

3. The assessee assails the order dated 21.11.2014 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal) Cochin Bench in IT(TP)A No.02/Coch/2014. The issues canvassed in the appeal relate to the return filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2009-10. Substantial question nos. (a) and (b) read as follows: I.T.A. No. 249/2015 -3- “a) Whether

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)

3. On appeal, the first appellate authority concurred with the Assessing Officer with respect to the dis-allowance; but, however, allowed deduction under Section 10A. The Department approached the Tribunal and the assessee filed a cross objection. The Department's appeal was allowed and the Assessing Officer was directed to consider the deduction under Section 10A. The cross objection