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.

11 results for “TDS”+ Section 28(2)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,741Delhi2,709Bangalore1,325Chennai890Kolkata580Ahmedabad466Hyderabad416Jaipur245Indore244Cochin243Pune229Chandigarh223Raipur204Karnataka201Patna196Rajkot89Nagpur86Visakhapatnam86Surat84Cuttack79Lucknow76Amritsar53Ranchi45Dehradun41Guwahati35Agra33Jodhpur27Allahabad21Telangana20Panaji13SC12Kerala11Jabalpur10Calcutta10Varanasi7Rajasthan3Uttarakhand2Orissa2Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

TDS5Section 41(1)4Section 273B4Section 403Section 9(1)(vii)3Section 143(1)(a)2Section 10A2Section 271C2Deduction2

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

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

ITA/54/2020
HC Kerala
03 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

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard, to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees' case also. The further argument

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

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard, to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees' case also. The further argument

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

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard, to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees' case also. The further argument

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

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard, to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees' case also. The further argument

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

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard, to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees' case also. The further argument

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)

28-01-2021, THE COURT ON 01-03-2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.R. No.70/2000 -:2:- “C.R.” ORDER Dated this the 1st day of March, 2021 Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court, under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1963. (for short 'the Act') relating

M/S. SUBSCRIBERS CHITS (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand allowed accordingly

ITA/34/2016HC Kerala23 Mar 2021

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

Section 271CSection 273B

2) of Sec.115-O(coming under Chapter XIID) or covered by the 'second proviso' to Section 194B (coming under Chapter XVIIB) alone would constitute an instance where penalty can be imposed in terms of Section 271C(1)(b) of the Act. Since there is no obscurity in the above provision, it is not for the Court to read something more into

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

2) Omitted by the Finance Act, 1992 w.e.f. 1.6.1992. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply— (i) where the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the financial year by the person referred

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

2) Omitted by the Finance Act, 1992 w.e.f. 1.6.1992. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply— (i) where the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the financial year by the person referred

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

2) Omitted by the Finance Act, 1992 w.e.f. 1.6.1992. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply— (i) where the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the financial year by the person referred