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.

4 results for “TDS”+ Section 65clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,410Mumbai1,290Bangalore759Chennai478Hyderabad333Kolkata313Ahmedabad296Indore198Chandigarh197Cochin193Jaipur169Pune137Karnataka135Cuttack86Visakhapatnam62Surat57Jabalpur54Raipur54Lucknow47Ranchi43Rajkot43Nagpur39Agra24Patna22Dehradun17Jodhpur17Amritsar14Telangana14Guwahati11Varanasi10Allahabad6Calcutta4SC4Panaji4Rajasthan4Kerala2Uttarakhand2

Key Topics

Section 115J6Section 260A3TDS3Section 94(7)2Section 682Section 2512Section 14A2Disallowance2

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. M/S BINANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed on the ground that the book profit as

ITA/70/2018HC Calcutta24 Aug 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 24Th August, 2022 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Madhur Agarwal Adv. Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv. Mr. A.K. Dey, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated March 02, 2016, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No.144/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Question Of Law :- “Whether The Amount Of Rs.12,65,75,000/-, Received By The Assessee On Account Of Forfeiture Of Shares Would Be Added To The Book Profits Of The

Section 115JSection 14ASection 251Section 260A

65,75,000 Revised net profit for the purpose of section 115JB Rs. 21,24,72,340 Less : Relief allowed as per Para 9 of the order Rs. 2,18,09,000 Rs. 19,06,63,340 Less : Dividend income Rs. 33,16,28,269 (-) Rs. 14,09,64,929 Add : Disallowance made by the assessee

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL 1, KOLKATA vs. M/S BINANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed on the ground that the book profit as

ITAT/196/2017HC Calcutta24 Aug 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 24Th August, 2022 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Madhur Agarwal Adv. Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv. Mr. A.K. Dey, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated March 02, 2016, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata In I.T.A. No.144/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Question Of Law :- “Whether The Amount Of Rs.12,65,75,000/-, Received By The Assessee On Account Of Forfeiture Of Shares Would Be Added To The Book Profits Of The

Section 115JSection 14ASection 251Section 260A

65,75,000 Revised net profit for the purpose of section 115JB Rs. 21,24,72,340 Less : Relief allowed as per Para 9 of the order Rs. 2,18,09,000 Rs. 19,06,63,340 Less : Dividend income Rs. 33,16,28,269 (-) Rs. 14,09,64,929 Add : Disallowance made by the assessee

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. TAPAN KANTI ROY

ITAT/224/2025HC Calcutta11 Mar 2026

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

Section 131Section 68

section 68 of the Act cast an onus on any assessee to prove a loan transaction from the point of verifiability of the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta propounded these principles way back in 1978 through the case of Shakar Industries reported in 114 ITR 689 (Cal). On this issue this

JET AGE SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-III

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITA/79/2010HC Calcutta15 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Section 260ASection 94(7)

Section 94(7)(b) of the Act, had expired before the amendment was made by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 in respect of the units of mutual fund under consideration except in the case of units of M/s. Reliance Vision Fund in which the assessee incurred loss of Rs. 16,53,820/- and the dividend received