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.

7 results for “TDS”+ Section 30clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,971Delhi2,896Bangalore1,406Chennai972Kolkata712Ahmedabad531Hyderabad516Pune414Jaipur331Indore306Cochin242Chandigarh235Karnataka221Patna198Raipur197Surat137Visakhapatnam125Lucknow105Nagpur100Cuttack97Rajkot96Amritsar66Ranchi52Jodhpur48Dehradun47Guwahati42Agra36Telangana24Panaji22Allahabad18Jabalpur17SC17Varanasi11Kerala9Calcutta7Punjab & Haryana2Orissa2Uttarakhand2Rajasthan2

Key Topics

Section 4017Section 1958Section 260A7Section 143(3)6Section 9(1)6Addition to Income6Disallowance4TDS3Section 14A2Section 194H

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

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

2
Section 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

Section 40(a)(ia) serves as a deterrent against non- compliance and is essential for maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the tax collection system. Permitting the appellant to escape its TDS obligations merely because the recipients have voluntarily paid taxes would defeat the very objective of the statutory provisions and weaken the enforcement mechanism. 30

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

30,77,646/- under Section 40(a)(i) on account of professional and consultancy charges to non residents by ignoring the fact that such fees are subject to tax in India under Section 9(1) read with Section 195 of the act? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred

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)

30,77,646/- under Section 40(a)(i) on account of professional and consultancy charges to non residents by ignoring the fact that such fees are subject to tax in India under Section 9(1) read with Section 195 of the act? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred

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

30 days period the assessee had no transactions through the said stock broker. 4 Thus, considering the normal human behaviour and applying the test of probabilities, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the entire transaction is sham leading to a bogus loss. After taking note of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Assessing Officer held that

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