Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,070 Delhi2,877 Bangalore1,396 Chennai1,210 Kolkata926 Hyderabad387 Ahmedabad366 Cochin265 Karnataka235 Jaipur226 Indore220 Pune196 Chandigarh164 Raipur157 Visakhapatnam78 Surat74 Nagpur71 Rajkot70 Lucknow67 Ranchi50 Cuttack46 Jodhpur35 Guwahati35 Amritsar30 Patna29 Telangana29 Agra26 Dehradun24 Panaji16 Jabalpur15 Calcutta13 Allahabad11 Kerala11 SC9 Varanasi4 Uttarakhand2 Gauhati1 J&K1 Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 4014 Section 80P(2)(a)6 Deduction6 Section 194C5 Section 194I5 TDS4 Section 260A3 Section 9(1)(vii)3 Section 194H3 Section 69C

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. A further sum of Rs.8,86,790/- was also disallowed under Section 40

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

3

ITA/18/2017

HC Kerala

23 Jun 2021

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

Section 143(2)Section 260A

TDS should have been deducted and Section 194G is attracted in all fours. Alternatively, in the admitted fact situation of the subject assessment Section 194H is attracted. 7. Advocate Anil Sivaraman invites our attention to the explanation given by the assessee to the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and contends that from the nature of lottery ticket

ALL KOSHYS ALL SPICES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed as above

ITA/23/2021HC Kerala12 Dec 2022

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

For Appellant: ALL KOSHYS ALL SPICESFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 40

TDS under section 194(c) of the Act and hence the said amount was disallowed under section 40(a)(1a) of the Act. 2. The assessing

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)

40(a)(i). 4. Sri.Raja Kannan, learned Counsel for the appellant, refers to Section 9(1)(vii) and Section 195 of the Act. It is the specific case of the appellant-assessee that the recipient of the commission is a non-resident, not taxable under the Act of 1961. It is admitted that the non-resident was also a Director

M/S.INDIA COFFEE BOARD WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/86/2015HC Kerala10 Aug 2021

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

For Appellant: M/S.INDIA COFFEE BOARD WORKERS CO-OPERATIVEFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 260ASection 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

TDS was not applied on rent payments made totalling Rs.1,81,247/- and the latter amount had not been disallowed and assessed under Section 40

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

TDS is not acceptable while treating the provision made for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The subject expenditure does not satisfy the provision of Section 40

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

40,400/- per acre. Thus there was different of amount of Rs.15 lakhs per acre. This difference cannot be considered as a receipt for sale of agricultural property since a similar property was sold by trustees at around Rs.15 lakhs per acre. According to the Department, the assessee adopted colourable devices to receive the amount from Believers Church

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

40,400/- per acre. Thus there was different of amount of Rs.15 lakhs per acre. This difference cannot be considered as a receipt for sale of agricultural property since a similar property was sold by trustees at around Rs.15 lakhs per acre. According to the Department, the assessee adopted colourable devices to receive the amount from Believers Church

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

40,400/- per acre. Thus there was different of amount of Rs.15 lakhs per acre. This difference cannot be considered as a receipt for sale of agricultural property since a similar property was sold by trustees at around Rs.15 lakhs per acre. According to the Department, the assessee adopted colourable devices to receive the amount from Believers Church

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

40,400/- per acre. Thus there was different of amount of Rs.15 lakhs per acre. This difference cannot be considered as a receipt for sale of agricultural property since a similar property was sold by trustees at around Rs.15 lakhs per acre. According to the Department, the assessee adopted colourable devices to receive the amount from Believers Church

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

40,400/- per acre. Thus there was different of amount of Rs.15 lakhs per acre. This difference cannot be considered as a receipt for sale of agricultural property since a similar property was sold by trustees at around Rs.15 lakhs per acre. According to the Department, the assessee adopted colourable devices to receive the amount from Believers Church