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 27clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,658Mumbai2,579Bangalore1,378Chennai972Kolkata626Pune519Hyderabad370Ahmedabad347Indore231Chandigarh214Raipur214Jaipur213Karnataka191Cochin169Nagpur127Surat96Rajkot92Visakhapatnam68Lucknow64Cuttack62Amritsar47Jabalpur31Dehradun29Ranchi27Guwahati25Allahabad25Agra22Patna22Telangana21Panaji20Jodhpur19SC14Kerala12Varanasi8Calcutta5Rajasthan2Uttarakhand2J&K1Orissa1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 4017Section 1958Section 9(1)6Section 260A5Section 143(3)4Disallowance4Addition to Income4Section 14A2Section 194H2

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

TDS deduction. 23. This Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal correctly applied the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) in conjunction with Section 194C. The payments under scrutiny were not reimbursements for expenses that had already been incurred and substantiated through bills or vouchers, rather, they represented contractual consideration for services specifically, activities like advertising, sales promotion, handling

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITAT/34/2020HC Calcutta16 Dec 2021

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

Section 14A
Section 194H
Section 195
Section 260A
Section 40
Section 9(1)

27,20,974/- under Section 40(a)(i) on account of advertisement publicity and sales which was reasonable considering the fact that the documents in support of such expenses were not produced by the assessee before the assessing officer? (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 KOLKATA vs. RAMESH CHAND GUPTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA/34/2020HC Calcutta07 Dec 2021

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

Section 14ASection 194HSection 195Section 260ASection 40Section 9(1)

27,20,974/- under Section 40(a)(i) on account of advertisement publicity and sales which was reasonable considering the fact that the documents in support of such expenses were not produced by the assessee before the assessing officer? (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting

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 154Section 195Section 260ASection 40Section 5Section 50CSection 9

27, 2011 under the provisions of Section 154 of the said Act and the total income was revised at Rs.172,19,20,000/-. In the order passed under Section 143(3)/154 dated 27.01.2011 the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was restricted to the extent of Rs.72,89,71,972/-. 6. The Assessee Company preferred an appeal before

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14, KOLKATA vs. PKS HOLDINGS

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the question nos

ITAT/62/2017HC Calcutta03 Aug 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

TDS certificate and no evidence was brought on record to establish rendering of service by the party. The Inspector attached to the department was directed to conduct an enquiry, who reported that there was no such concern ever existed in the said premises. Therefore, in absence of any evidence regarding rendering of service, the expenditure claimed was disallowed. Apart from