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.

1,826 results for “TDS”+ Section 10clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,858Mumbai4,783Bangalore2,408Chennai1,826Kolkata1,146Pune917Hyderabad653Ahmedabad615Jaipur430Indore368Raipur355Karnataka354Chandigarh300Nagpur226Cochin195Visakhapatnam172Lucknow146Surat138Rajkot132Jodhpur83Ranchi66Cuttack65Amritsar64Patna63Telangana49Agra48Dehradun44Panaji44Guwahati43Jabalpur28SC22Allahabad17Kerala15Calcutta13Varanasi8Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Punjab & Haryana4Orissa3J&K3Uttarakhand3Bombay1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 234E94Section 143(3)65Disallowance55TDS52Section 14A47Addition to Income46Section 4034Section 200A33Deduction33Section 153A

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 430/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44

10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable\nto the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3\nto 7 are allowed.\n42. Ground

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are partly allowed and appeals for AY 2015-16 & 2017-18 (in ITA No

ITA 182/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026

Showing 1–20 of 1,826 · Page 1 of 92

...
24
Double Taxation/DTAA20
Natural Justice17
AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1759/Chny/2019, 182 & 183/Chny/2021, 430/Chny/2022 & 683/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of O/O The Chief Manager, Cfac Income Tax – 3, Department, Head Office, United India Chennai 600 034. Nalanda, Door No. 19, Ground Floor, 4Th Lane, Utamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacu5552C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundararaman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 1759/Chny/2019 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals In Ita No. 182 & 183/Chny/2021 Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Both Dated 28.03.2021 Passed By The Ld. Pcit-3, Chennai For The Assessment 2015-16 & 2016-17. The 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44

10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the Act vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons recorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable to the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3 to 7 are allowed. 42. Ground

PRAKASHCHAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3061/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: 17.12.2025
Section 154Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 3

10. The Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the levy of interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsus invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsustainable. tainable. The Appellant

PRAKASHCHAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3065/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: 17.12.2025
Section 154Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 3

10. The Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the levy of interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsus invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsustainable. tainable. The Appellant

PRAKASHCHAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3063/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: 17.12.2025
Section 154Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 3

10. The Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the levy of interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsus invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsustainable. tainable. The Appellant

PRAKASHCHAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD 1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3064/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: 17.12.2025
Section 154Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 3

10. The Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the levy of interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsus invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsustainable. tainable. The Appellant

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

ITA 183/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44

10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable\nto the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3\nto 7 are allowed.\n42.\nGround

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3,, CHENNAI

ITA 1759/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44

10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable\nto the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3\nto 7 are allowed.\n42.\nGround

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

ITA 683/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44

10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable\nto the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3\nto 7 are allowed.\n42.\nGround

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2020/CHNY/2018[2013-14(Q3)-26Q]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS returns filed by the deductor. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2018/CHNY/2018[2013-14(Q2)-26Q]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS returns filed by the deductor. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2019/CHNY/2018[2013-14(Q3)-26Q]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS returns filed by the deductor. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2016/CHNY/2018[2013-14(Q3)-24Q]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS returns filed by the deductor. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2017/CHNY/2018[2013-14(Q4)-24Q]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS returns filed by the deductor. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2015/CHNY/2018[2013-14(Q2)-24Q]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

section 234E of the Act while processing the TDS returns filed by the deductor. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

ALFHA COACH BUILDERS,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all six these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 33/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 32 & 33/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Alfha Coach Builders, The Income Tax Officer, Sf No.596’3, Andan Kovil East, Vs. Ward -1, Pudhur, Covai Road, Karur. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaofa-8970-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS

ALFHA COACH BUILDERS,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all six these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 32/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 32 & 33/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Alfha Coach Builders, The Income Tax Officer, Sf No.596’3, Andan Kovil East, Vs. Ward -1, Pudhur, Covai Road, Karur. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaofa-8970-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS

M/S GOPURAM ENTERPRISES PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO , TDS CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1052/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri R. Devaraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 234E

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS

M/S GOPURAM ENTERPRISES PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO , TDS CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1051/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri R. Devaraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 234E

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS

M/S GOPURAM ENTERPRISES PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO , TDS CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1050/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri R. Devaraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 234E

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS