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.

117 results for “TDS”+ Section 207clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi318Mumbai271Bangalore152Chennai117Karnataka86Raipur74Hyderabad62Kolkata61Jaipur39Chandigarh21Cuttack16Ahmedabad16Indore12Cochin9Telangana6Ranchi6Rajkot5Surat5Kerala5Pune5Jodhpur3SC2Amritsar2Lucknow2Patna2Varanasi1Nagpur1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 14A72Section 143(3)57TDS48Section 4039Addition to Income38Section 153A33Deduction31Disallowance29Section 14821Section 143(1)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1262/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

M/S VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed whereas Cross objections are dismissed

ITA 1507/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai

Showing 1–20 of 117 · Page 1 of 6

16
Section 9(1)13
Section 36(1)(va)13
30 Nov 2016
AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri. N. Venkatraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.M. Doss, IRS,CIT
Section 234ASection 234BSection 260ASection 9(1)

TDS on payments effected to the assessee was with Indian customers. With regard to question whether there could be levy of interest for non-payment of advance-tax, on such amounts by the recipients, we find that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Madras Fertilisers Ltd (supra) had held at para 7 of its judgment as under

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS SINGAPORE PTE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed whereas Cross objections are dismissed

ITA 1722/CHNY/2011[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-2009

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

For Appellant: Shri. N. Venkatraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.M. Doss, IRS,CIT
Section 234ASection 234BSection 260ASection 9(1)

TDS on payments effected to the assessee was with Indian customers. With regard to question whether there could be levy of interest for non-payment of advance-tax, on such amounts by the recipients, we find that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Madras Fertilisers Ltd (supra) had held at para 7 of its judgment as under

M/S VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS SINGAPORE PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY MCI WORLDCOM ASIA PVT. LTD.),CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed whereas Cross objections are dismissed

ITA 164/CHNY/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri. N. Venkatraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.M. Doss, IRS,CIT
Section 234ASection 234BSection 260ASection 9(1)

TDS on payments effected to the assessee was with Indian customers. With regard to question whether there could be levy of interest for non-payment of advance-tax, on such amounts by the recipients, we find that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Madras Fertilisers Ltd (supra) had held at para 7 of its judgment as under

M/S VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS SINGAPORE PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY MCI WORLDCOM ASIA PVT. LTD.),CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed whereas Cross objections are dismissed

ITA 1311/CHNY/2006[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Shri. N. Venkatraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.M. Doss, IRS,CIT
Section 234ASection 234BSection 260ASection 9(1)

TDS on payments effected to the assessee was with Indian customers. With regard to question whether there could be levy of interest for non-payment of advance-tax, on such amounts by the recipients, we find that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Madras Fertilisers Ltd (supra) had held at para 7 of its judgment as under

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 842/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. Hyundai Motor India Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Industrial Park Income Tax, Irrungattukottai, 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Sriperumbudur Taluk, Ring Road, Kancheepuram District, Anna Nagar Western Tamil Nadu-602117 Extension, Chennai-600101 [Pan: Aaach2364M] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)

For Respondent: 13.11.2019
Section 234C

TDS, the learned :- 4 -: DRP directed AO to verify details and allow credit as per law, vide its directions dated 28.12.2015 passed u/s 144C(5) of the 1961 Act. The AO while passing assessment order dated 28.01.2016 u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the 1961 Act, levied interest on ‘assessed income’ instead of ‘returned income’. We have

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 663/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

TDS credit of Rs 1,96,79,460 while computing the tax payable. 28. The earned AC has erred in not giving the MAT credit of Rs.26,35,58,884 while computing the tax payable. 29. The Learned AC has erred in wrongly adding an additional tax amount of Rs. 1,51,00,445 without any basis. Interest under section

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1973/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

TDS credit of Rs 1,96,79,460 while computing the tax payable. 28. The earned AC has erred in not giving the MAT credit of Rs.26,35,58,884 while computing the tax payable. 29. The Learned AC has erred in wrongly adding an additional tax amount of Rs. 1,51,00,445 without any basis. Interest under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1075/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

TDS credit of Rs 1,96,79,460 while computing the tax payable. 28. The earned AC has erred in not giving the MAT credit of Rs.26,35,58,884 while computing the tax payable. 29. The Learned AC has erred in wrongly adding an additional tax amount of Rs. 1,51,00,445 without any basis. Interest under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1421/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

TDS credit of Rs 1,96,79,460 while computing the tax payable. 28. The earned AC has erred in not giving the MAT credit of Rs.26,35,58,884 while computing the tax payable. 29. The Learned AC has erred in wrongly adding an additional tax amount of Rs. 1,51,00,445 without any basis. Interest under section

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1205/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1206/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1263/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1264/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1194/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1266/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act:\n\nThe next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the\norder of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in making\ndisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment towards\nSoftware Annual Maintenance Charges ('Software AMC') and\npayments towards license to use software ('Software License

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

ITA 1207/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

TDS u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act to the tune of Rs.1,56,23,813/- stands disallowed u/s.40a(ia) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and is sustained. The alternate plea raised by the appellant is not entertained as disallowance u/s.40a(ia) is for a specific violation as prescribed in the Act and the disallowance does not serve

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

ITA 1193/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

TDS u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act to the tune of Rs.1,56,23,813/- stands disallowed u/s.40a(ia) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and is sustained. The alternate plea raised by the appellant is not entertained as disallowance u/s.40a(ia) is for a specific violation as prescribed in the Act and the disallowance does not serve

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1803/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

section 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable and deleted the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and on and relied on the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No. 1485/2007 in remitting to the Assessing Officer to follow jurisdictional Tribunal decision and allowed

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1804/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

section 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable and deleted the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and on and relied on the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No. 1485/2007 in remitting to the Assessing Officer to follow jurisdictional Tribunal decision and allowed