Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

263 results for “TDS”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,023 Delhi2,821 Bangalore1,359 Chennai1,198 Kolkata971 Ahmedabad641 Hyderabad589 Pune374 Cochin368 Jaipur331 Indore277 Chandigarh263 Karnataka223 Raipur201 Visakhapatnam182 Cuttack181 Surat168 Rajkot121 Nagpur93 Lucknow81 Amritsar73 Jabalpur69 Ranchi57 Jodhpur50 Guwahati50 Dehradun45 Agra39 Allahabad31 Panaji29 Telangana29 Patna28 Calcutta13 Kerala11 Varanasi11 SC9 Uttarakhand2 Gauhati1 Rajasthan1 J&K1

Key Topics

Section 26363 Section 4053 Section 143(3)46 Addition to Income44 Deduction35 TDS34 Disallowance33 Section 1021 Section 40A(3)20 Section 148

PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 627/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40aSection 43B

Section 40(a)(ia): Disallowed 30% of Rs. 19,27,329 paid as interest to six ex-employees without TDS

Showing 1–20 of 263 · Page 1 of 14

...

18

Section 143(2)16

M/S PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL,PANCHKULA vs. ADDL. CIT, PANCHKULA RANGE, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 208/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Prestige International, Vs. The Addl.Cit, 267, Industrial Area, Panchkula Range, Phase-1, Panchkula. Panchkula. Pan: Aaifp3677L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Sukhwinder Sharma

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

TDS which is a primary condition as per provisions of first proviso to Section 2011(1) and of second proviso to Section 40

DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1321/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan

Section 195Section 40Section 9

section 40(a)(ia) as no TDS was deducted on the sales commission pertaining to exports paid to the parties

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan

Section 195Section 40Section 9

section 40(a)(ia) as no TDS was deducted on the sales commission pertaining to exports paid to the parties

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 804/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan

Section 195Section 40Section 9

section 40(a)(ia) as no TDS was deducted on the sales commission pertaining to exports paid to the parties

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 932/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan

Section 195Section 40Section 9

section 40(a)(ia) as no TDS was deducted on the sales commission pertaining to exports paid to the parties

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 822/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

TDS-272 Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9429687 5704144 3725543 3.4 The submissions filed by the assessee were considered but not accepted to the AO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section 40

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 823/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

TDS-272 Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9429687 5704144 3725543 3.4 The submissions filed by the assessee were considered but not accepted to the AO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section 40

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 824/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

TDS-272 Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9429687 5704144 3725543 3.4 The submissions filed by the assessee were considered but not accepted to the AO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section 40

MUKESH MALHOTRA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 825/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

TDS-272 Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9429687 5704144 3725543 3.4 The submissions filed by the assessee were considered but not accepted to the AO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section 40

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIMLA, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 821/CHANDI/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

TDS-272 Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9429687 5704144 3725543 3.4 The submissions filed by the assessee were considered but not accepted to the AO. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section 40

SH. RANA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 171/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 253(5)Section 40

TDS will entail disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, However, in view of the consistent position taken by the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal wherein the amendment in section

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 394/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

TDS. 5. The AO disallowed the expenditure on the commission on exports amounting to Rs.2,20,71,855/-, invoking the provisions of Section 40

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 960/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

TDS. 5. The AO disallowed the expenditure on the commission on exports amounting to Rs.2,20,71,855/-, invoking the provisions of Section 40

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 1033/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

TDS. 5. The AO disallowed the expenditure on the commission on exports amounting to Rs.2,20,71,855/-, invoking the provisions of Section 40

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 389/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

TDS. 5. The AO disallowed the expenditure on the commission on exports amounting to Rs.2,20,71,855/-, invoking the provisions of Section 40

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 532/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

TDS u/s 195 of the Act and therefore provisions of section 40(a)(i) are attracted. Appellant has also submitted

DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 253/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh.K.M Gupta, Adv., Sh. NishantFor Respondent: Sh. Vikram Batra, CIT-DR

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is warranted qua TDS made under different 13 आअसं.253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व.2011-12) आअसं

M/S DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PVT. LTD. ,TOANSA vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1592/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh.K.M Gupta, Adv., Sh. NishantFor Respondent: Sh. Vikram Batra, CIT-DR

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is warranted qua TDS made under different 13 आअसं.253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व.2011-12) आअसं

SH. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-V(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 901/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N.D.Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 201Section 250(6)Section 40

TDS under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. At the outset , Ld. Counsel for the assessee