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.

715 results for “TDS”+ Section 35clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,336Mumbai2,133Bangalore1,267Chennai715Kolkata463Hyderabad344Raipur326Ahmedabad299Indore230Jaipur228Chandigarh208Cochin193Karnataka169Pune159Surat85Visakhapatnam72Rajkot72Lucknow69Dehradun55Cuttack54Nagpur40Ranchi36Jabalpur34Guwahati31Jodhpur26Patna23Agra20Allahabad19Amritsar18Panaji17Telangana14SC12Varanasi11Kerala9Calcutta3Uttarakhand2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 40107TDS61Addition to Income61Section 19559Disallowance59Section 143(3)57Deduction52Section 14A45Section 80H36Section 80

M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3113/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

35,900/- as TP adjustment. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the above TP adjustment. The assessee contended that Tribunal is consistently holding that TP adjustment in respect of guarantee given to AE shall be at 0.5% and prayed to restrict the disallowance to 0.5% by relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sundaram Fasteners

Showing 1–20 of 715 · Page 1 of 36

...
30
Section 529
Section 14817

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3251/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

35,900/- as TP adjustment. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the above TP adjustment. The assessee contended that Tribunal is consistently holding that TP adjustment in respect of guarantee given to AE shall be at 0.5% and prayed to restrict the disallowance to 0.5% by relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sundaram Fasteners

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

TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged fees under section 234E of the Act while processing the statements under section 200A of the Act before 01.06.2015, there is no merit in the reliance placed upon by the learned DR on the said proposition laid down

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

TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged fees under section 234E of the Act while processing the statements under section 200A of the Act before 01.06.2015, there is no merit in the reliance placed upon by the learned DR on the said proposition laid down

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

TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged fees under section 234E of the Act while processing the statements under section 200A of the Act before 01.06.2015, there is no merit in the reliance placed upon by the learned DR on the said proposition laid down

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

TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged fees under section 234E of the Act while processing the statements under section 200A of the Act before 01.06.2015, there is no merit in the reliance placed upon by the learned DR on the said proposition laid down

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

TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged fees under section 234E of the Act while processing the statements under section 200A of the Act before 01.06.2015, there is no merit in the reliance placed upon by the learned DR on the said proposition laid down

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

TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged fees under section 234E of the Act while processing the statements under section 200A of the Act before 01.06.2015, there is no merit in the reliance placed upon by the learned DR on the said proposition laid down

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

ITA 2406/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Respondent: 16.09.2019
Section 100Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1376/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

section 35(1)(iv) of the Act to substantiate that the capital expenditure incurred on R&D building was not claimed as deduction twice and the same was duly accepted by the CIT (A). Ground No 3: The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income tax Act in respect of the foreign

SUNDARAM CLAYTON LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1356/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

section 35(1)(iv) of the Act to substantiate that the capital expenditure incurred on R&D building was not claimed as deduction twice and the same was duly accepted by the CIT (A). Ground No 3: The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income tax Act in respect of the foreign

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1254/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

section 35(1)(iv) of the Act to substantiate that the capital expenditure incurred on R&D building was not claimed as deduction twice and the same was duly accepted by the CIT (A). Ground No 3: The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income tax Act in respect of the foreign

SUNDARAM CLAYTON LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1355/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

section 35(1)(iv) of the Act to substantiate that the capital expenditure incurred on R&D building was not claimed as deduction twice and the same was duly accepted by the CIT (A). Ground No 3: The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income tax Act in respect of the foreign

WABCO INDIA LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORP CIR3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 542/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkatasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddhappaji, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 35

35(2AB) of the Act after taking note of the DSIR certificate dated 16.03.2017. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed.” I.T.A. Nos.542 & 1689/Chny/2019 8 As the issue is fully covered against the assessee and in favour of Revenue by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, respectfully following the same, we dismiss this issue of assessee

WABCO INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1689/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkatasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddhappaji, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 35

35(2AB) of the Act after taking note of the DSIR certificate dated 16.03.2017. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed.” I.T.A. Nos.542 & 1689/Chny/2019 8 As the issue is fully covered against the assessee and in favour of Revenue by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, respectfully following the same, we dismiss this issue of assessee

M/S. BINNY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, TDS,CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the\norder of Ld

ITA 24/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16
Section 194Section 201Section 250

TDS survey was conducted upon its\npremise on 26.10.2021. During the course of the survey it was noted\nthat the assessee had entered into a transaction for purchase of land\nadmeasuring about 7.07 acres of land during financial year with one M/s.\nMohan Breweries and distilleries Limited(MBDL), a sister concern of the\nassessee. For the purpose the assessee

BIMETAL BEARINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 668/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 14ASection 40

35,618/- by applying the provisions of Rule 8D of the IT Rules towards expenditure for the purpose of earning the dividend income. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 2.1 We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including paper book along with case

BIMETAL BEARINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 671/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 14ASection 40

35,618/- by applying the provisions of Rule 8D of the IT Rules towards expenditure for the purpose of earning the dividend income. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 2.1 We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including paper book along with case

BIMETAL BEARINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 670/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 14ASection 40

35,618/- by applying the provisions of Rule 8D of the IT Rules towards expenditure for the purpose of earning the dividend income. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 2.1 We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including paper book along with case

BIMETAL BEARINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 669/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 668, 669, 670 & 671/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2007-08 To 2010-11 M/S. Bimetal Bearings Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 18, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Coimbatore 641 018. 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extension, [Pan:Aaacb2036Q] Chennai 600 101. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai All Dated 30.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 14ASection 40

35,618/- by applying the provisions of Rule 8D of the IT Rules towards expenditure for the purpose of earning the dividend income. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 2.1 We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including paper book along with case