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.

3 results for “TDS”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,129Mumbai1,879Bangalore695Chennai548Pune522Kolkata355Ahmedabad249Hyderabad232Jaipur218Raipur201Indore187Karnataka155Chandigarh134Visakhapatnam80Nagpur79Cochin75Lucknow57Rajkot48Cuttack44Surat42Jodhpur37Dehradun30Guwahati24Agra22Patna16Panaji15Amritsar15Telangana15SC13Jabalpur13Ranchi8Allahabad4Calcutta3Orissa2Kerala2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 322Section 32(1)2Section 682Section 133(6)2Deduction2Depreciation2

SAUMABHA DASGUPTA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) 6 KOLKATA AND ANR

ITA/30/2022HC Calcutta05 Jul 2023

Bench: The Hon’Ble Justice Harish Tandon The Hon’Ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas Date: 5Th July, 2023 Appearance Mr. Raghunath Das, Advocate Ms. Monalisa Das, Advocate ….For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate …For The Respondents The Court: This Is Virtually A Second Round Of Litigation Before This Court, Assailing An Order Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “Sms” Kolkata Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee/Petitioner Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10. While Filing The Income Tax Return, The Petitioner Disclosed The Income & Further Deducted The Amount Of Interest Paid On Personal Loan & Other Loans. At The Time Of Scrutiny, It Was Found That Substantial Amount Of Money Was Deposited In Cash With The Savings Bank Account By The Petitioner Who Is Admittedly A Medical Practitioner & Purchased A Ct Scan Machine For His Profession Or Business. The Department Was Of The View That The Personal Loan Cannot Be Equated With The Business Loan Where The Interest Is An Allowable

Section 32Section 32(1)

TDS. The manner in which the 6 calculation has been made appears to us that after determining the total taxable income, the tax is assessed and/or determined and the statutory penalty

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. ADITYA SARAF HUF

ITAT/30/2022HC Calcutta02 Jan 2023

Bench: The Hon’Ble Justice Harish Tandon The Hon’Ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas Date: 5Th July, 2023 Appearance Mr. Raghunath Das, Advocate Ms. Monalisa Das, Advocate ….For The Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate …For The Respondents The Court: This Is Virtually A Second Round Of Litigation Before This Court, Assailing An Order Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench “Sms” Kolkata Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee/Petitioner Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10. While Filing The Income Tax Return, The Petitioner Disclosed The Income & Further Deducted The Amount Of Interest Paid On Personal Loan & Other Loans. At The Time Of Scrutiny, It Was Found That Substantial Amount Of Money Was Deposited In Cash With The Savings Bank Account By The Petitioner Who Is Admittedly A Medical Practitioner & Purchased A Ct Scan Machine For His Profession Or Business. The Department Was Of The View That The Personal Loan Cannot Be Equated With The Business Loan Where The Interest Is An Allowable

Section 32Section 32(1)

TDS. The manner in which the 6 calculation has been made appears to us that after determining the total taxable income, the tax is assessed and/or determined and the statutory penalty

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S SREELEATHERS

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/18/2022HC Calcutta14 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 133(6)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

Penalty proceedings were to be initiated separately. Aggrieved by such order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 09, Kolkata [CIT (A)]. Before the Appellate Authority, the Assessee contended that the Assessing Officer failed to take note of the genuineness of the transactions and failed to consider the documents which were placed before him to establish