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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Section 22clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,011Delhi2,975Bangalore1,567Chennai1,095Kolkata698Pune539Hyderabad468Indore423Ahmedabad394Jaipur282Cochin236Raipur224Karnataka221Chandigarh205Patna172Visakhapatnam146Nagpur127Surat107Lucknow85Rajkot84Cuttack63Dehradun48Ranchi46Amritsar41Panaji32Guwahati32Agra30Jodhpur27Telangana27Allahabad26Jabalpur22SC14Varanasi12Kerala10Calcutta5Orissa2Uttarakhand2Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)6Section 260A5Section 405Addition to Income4Disallowance3TDS3Section 1952Section 14A2Section 1452

DEYS MEDICAL (U.P.) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA

ITAT/160/2024HC Calcutta18 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Section 40

22. The core issues before this Court revolve around the legality and appropriateness of the Tribunal’s approach, particularly whether invoking Section 40(a)(ia) was justified given the true nature of these payments and the manner in which they were calculated. A key point of contention is whether these payments, which were determined as fixed percentages

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S LINDE INDIA LIMITED

ITAT/338/2016HC Calcutta05 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Respondent: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv
Section 143(3)
Section 154
Section 195
Section 260A
Section 40
Section 5
Section 50C
Section 9

TDS under Section 195 of the Act. 12. Mr. Rai further contended that the first appellate authority as well as the learned Tribunal proceeded to decide the issue regarding disallowance of amount under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by approaching the said issue from a wrong angle. He contended that the first appellate authority and the Tribunal directed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LTD

ITAT/89/2025HC Calcutta21 Jul 2025

Bench: The Learned Tribunal – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Which Have Been Disposed Of By A Common Order, Impugned In This Appeal. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

For Appellant: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate
Section 14ASection 260ASection 37(1)Section 40a

22,380/- and book profit under Section 115JB at Rs. 59,03,41,20,702/-. The case was selected 5 for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 30.08.2011. Subsequently, notice under Section 142(1) was issued along with a questionnare. 5. The assessee company is engaged in the business of (i) manufacture

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA XIX, KOLKATA vs. M/S SANDERSON AND MORGANS

ITA/155/2011HC Calcutta07 Feb 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 260A

TDS can not be treated as income because the job is to be performed and bills are raised and income is recognized. Further it’s not the AO’s case that the expenses were not actually laid out or they were not laid out for the purpose of the Appellant’s business. It is also not the AO’s case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL II, KOLKATA vs. HALDIRAM BHUJIWALA LIMITED

ITAT/155/2011HC Calcutta06 Jun 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 260A

TDS can not be treated as income because the job is to be performed and bills are raised and income is recognized. Further it’s not the AO’s case that the expenses were not actually laid out or they were not laid out for the purpose of the Appellant’s business. It is also not the AO’s case