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.

992 results for “TDS”+ Section 13(2)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,187Mumbai3,038Bangalore1,765Chennai992Kolkata803Pune629Indore548Ahmedabad537Hyderabad508Jaipur373Chandigarh338Cochin271Raipur256Karnataka235Visakhapatnam180Surat143Nagpur128Cuttack107Rajkot100Lucknow92Amritsar56Ranchi54Dehradun50Jabalpur42Panaji40Guwahati37Agra31Allahabad30Patna29Jodhpur26SC19Telangana17Kerala13Varanasi10Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan5Calcutta5Orissa2Uttarakhand2J&K1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 4081Section 143(3)56Disallowance54Addition to Income48Section 19547TDS44Deduction44Section 234E24Section 14A22Section 263

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2220/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

13(l)(d)." ii) In Queen's Educational Society Vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 699(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "The law common to sub-clauses (iiiad) and (vi) of section 10(23C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, may be summed up as follows: (1) Where an educational institution carries on the activity

Showing 1–20 of 992 · Page 1 of 50

...
20
Section 14717
Section 200A17

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2219/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

13(l)(d)." ii) In Queen's Educational Society Vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 699(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "The law common to sub-clauses (iiiad) and (vi) of section 10(23C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, may be summed up as follows: (1) Where an educational institution carries on the activity

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2125/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

13(l)(d)." ii) In Queen's Educational Society Vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 699(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "The law common to sub-clauses (iiiad) and (vi) of section 10(23C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, may be summed up as follows: (1) Where an educational institution carries on the activity

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2126/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

13(l)(d)." ii) In Queen's Educational Society Vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 699(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "The law common to sub-clauses (iiiad) and (vi) of section 10(23C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, may be summed up as follows: (1) Where an educational institution carries on the activity

SREE RAGHAVENDRA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 834/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 834 & 835/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri. G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(C)Section 13(1)(c)Section 201Section 40

2)(b) to as to confer any undue benefit directly or indirectly to the persons referred to in sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Income Tax Act to deny the assessee benefit under section 11 for alleged violation. 12. In the above circumstance the assessee submitted the order of AO is computed the income of the assessee

SREE RAGHAVENDRA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD 4, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 835/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 834 & 835/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri. G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(C)Section 13(1)(c)Section 201Section 40

2)(b) to as to confer any undue benefit directly or indirectly to the persons referred to in sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Income Tax Act to deny the assessee benefit under section 11 for alleged violation. 12. In the above circumstance the assessee submitted the order of AO is computed the income of the assessee

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

13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and the applicability of Section 15 and the applicability of Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act for 200A(1)(c) of the Act for relevant assessment years. There is no relevant assessment years. There is no dispute on the aspect that the TDS statement was filed under dispute on the aspect that the TDS

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

13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and the applicability of Section 15 and the applicability of Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act for 200A(1)(c) of the Act for relevant assessment years. There is no relevant assessment years. There is no dispute on the aspect that the TDS statement was filed under dispute on the aspect that the TDS

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

13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and the applicability of Section 15 and the applicability of Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act for 200A(1)(c) of the Act for relevant assessment years. There is no relevant assessment years. There is no dispute on the aspect that the TDS statement was filed under dispute on the aspect that the TDS

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

13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and the applicability of Section 15 and the applicability of Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act for 200A(1)(c) of the Act for relevant assessment years. There is no relevant assessment years. There is no dispute on the aspect that the TDS statement was filed under dispute on the aspect that the TDS

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

TDS from such payments. The recipients had also duly reflected / accounted for these sums in their respective accounts and returns as applicable. It will be pertinent to point out that this commission works out to less than 5% of the entire sale consideration. It was the contention 6 - - ITA 1216 & 2106/13 of the assessee that

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

TDS from such payments. The recipients had also duly reflected / accounted for these sums in their respective accounts and returns as applicable. It will be pertinent to point out that this commission works out to less than 5% of the entire sale consideration. It was the contention 6 - - ITA 1216 & 2106/13 of the assessee that

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1623/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1622/CHNY/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1625/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1662/CHNY/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2371/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1627/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1624/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1667/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938 clearly says that every insurer shall re-insure with Indian re-insurer such percentage of sum assured on each policy as may be specified by the authority. In this case, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing