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.

29 results for “TDS”+ Section 10(26)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,421Mumbai2,288Bangalore1,375Chennai870Pune622Kolkata545Hyderabad521Ahmedabad467Cochin349Jaipur296Indore292Chandigarh269Raipur223Karnataka179Surat149Visakhapatnam134Cuttack124Rajkot94Nagpur82Lucknow75Jabalpur61Amritsar46Ranchi42Guwahati38Jodhpur33Agra29Dehradun29Allahabad22Panaji19Telangana18Patna16SC14Kerala10Varanasi9Calcutta4Uttarakhand3Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1Rajasthan1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 44B62Section 44D27Section 4017Section 915Section 194A15Addition to Income14Section 143(3)10Section 20110Section 201(1)9TDS

MB PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1828/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshmb Petroleum Services Llc, Vs. Ddit, Kirtane & Pandit, H-16, Circle-1, Saraswati Colony, Sitaldevi International Taxation, Temple Road, Mahim, Dehradun Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecm2604H

For Appellant: Smt Shashi M. Kapila, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 44B

10% on gross receipts actually, then still its income would be determined only in terms of section 44BB(1) of the Act. There is absolutely no scope for determining income of the assessee under normal provisions of the Act. This is so because of non obstante clause provided u/s 44BB of the Act which reads as under:- “Special provision

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

9
Disallowance8
Deduction8

SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3824/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4561/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 3824/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smith International Inc., Vs Adit, 806-807, Powai Plaza, Central International Taxation, Avenue, Hiranandani Garden, Dehradun Powai, Mumbai-400076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs3148R

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. S. Mapwal, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143Section 293ASection 42Section 44ASection 44BSection 44D

10. We have perused the record before us and the rationale of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) held that the distinction between PSC and non-PSC partners for deciding whether a receipt would be assessed u/s 44BB or as FTS or Royalty does not have the support of law or for that matters any judicial authority. Thus

DDIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC., DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3909/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4561/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 3824/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smith International Inc., Vs Adit, 806-807, Powai Plaza, Central International Taxation, Avenue, Hiranandani Garden, Dehradun Powai, Mumbai-400076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs3148R

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. S. Mapwal, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143Section 293ASection 42Section 44ASection 44BSection 44D

10. We have perused the record before us and the rationale of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) held that the distinction between PSC and non-PSC partners for deciding whether a receipt would be assessed u/s 44BB or as FTS or Royalty does not have the support of law or for that matters any judicial authority. Thus

SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4561/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4561/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 3824/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smith International Inc., Vs Adit, 806-807, Powai Plaza, Central International Taxation, Avenue, Hiranandani Garden, Dehradun Powai, Mumbai-400076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs3148R

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. S. Mapwal, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143Section 293ASection 42Section 44ASection 44BSection 44D

10. We have perused the record before us and the rationale of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) held that the distinction between PSC and non-PSC partners for deciding whether a receipt would be assessed u/s 44BB or as FTS or Royalty does not have the support of law or for that matters any judicial authority. Thus

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC., DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4651/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4561/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 3824/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smith International Inc., Vs Adit, 806-807, Powai Plaza, Central International Taxation, Avenue, Hiranandani Garden, Dehradun Powai, Mumbai-400076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs3148R

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. S. Mapwal, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143Section 293ASection 42Section 44ASection 44BSection 44D

10. We have perused the record before us and the rationale of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) held that the distinction between PSC and non-PSC partners for deciding whether a receipt would be assessed u/s 44BB or as FTS or Royalty does not have the support of law or for that matters any judicial authority. Thus

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5/DDN/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Mar 2022AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri T.S. Mapwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

TDS of Rs.II,95,58,717 deducted by the income-tax authorities on interest on income-tax refund. Ground No. 12: Erroneous levy of interest under section 234A of the Act 12.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts, in levying interest under section 234A of the Act whereas the Appellant filed the return of income within

SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6437/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri C.N. Prasad[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Schlumberger Asia Services Deputy Director Of Income Tax Limited, (International Taxation), 14Th Floor, Tower C, Building Dehradun No.1, Dlf City, Phase Ii, Gurgaon-122002 Pan-Aadcs1107J Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2011-12] Deputy Director Of Income Tax Schlumberger Asia Services (International Taxation), Limited, Dehradun 14Th Floor, Tower C, Building No.1, Dlf City, Phase Ii, Gurgaon-122002 Pan- Aadcs1107J Revenue Assessee Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kappor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. T.S.Mapwal, Sr.Dr

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9

TDS has not been given. The Id. AO must do so at the time of giving effect to this order. 10. Ground no. 9 challenges the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. This ground is allowed following the case of Maersk reported in 334 ITR 79 (UK). 11. Ground nos. 10 and 11 challenge the initiation of penalty

SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5223/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

26 JUNE 2023-copy received by the assessee on 10 July 2023 1. On the issue raised in by the DR in Para 2 of the Note i.e. the assessee has offered the 'income from interest on income-tax refund' in its the return of income for both the years under the head 'business income, and that the claim

SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6126/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

26 JUNE 2023-copy received by the assessee on 10 July 2023 1. On the issue raised in by the DR in Para 2 of the Note i.e. the assessee has offered the 'income from interest on income-tax refund' in its the return of income for both the years under the head 'business income, and that the claim

DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6173/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

26 JUNE 2023-copy received by the assessee on 10 July 2023 1. On the issue raised in by the DR in Para 2 of the Note i.e. the assessee has offered the 'income from interest on income-tax refund' in its the return of income for both the years under the head 'business income, and that the claim

DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5305/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

26 JUNE 2023-copy received by the assessee on 10 July 2023 1. On the issue raised in by the DR in Para 2 of the Note i.e. the assessee has offered the 'income from interest on income-tax refund' in its the return of income for both the years under the head 'business income, and that the claim

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2956/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

26. We’ve carefully considered the rival contention and find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) wherein even the second leg contract was also considered to be eligible for the preferential treatment u/s 44 BB of the income

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5584/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

26. We’ve carefully considered the rival contention and find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) wherein even the second leg contract was also considered to be eligible for the preferential treatment u/s 44 BB of the income

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5583/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

26. We’ve carefully considered the rival contention and find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) wherein even the second leg contract was also considered to be eligible for the preferential treatment u/s 44 BB of the income

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5565/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

26. We’ve carefully considered the rival contention and find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) wherein even the second leg contract was also considered to be eligible for the preferential treatment u/s 44 BB of the income

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5564/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

26. We’ve carefully considered the rival contention and find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) wherein even the second leg contract was also considered to be eligible for the preferential treatment u/s 44 BB of the income

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I. OVERSEAS LTD., NOIDA

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3045/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

26. We’ve carefully considered the rival contention and find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) wherein even the second leg contract was also considered to be eligible for the preferential treatment u/s 44 BB of the income

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3072/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

26. We’ve carefully considered the rival contention and find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) wherein even the second leg contract was also considered to be eligible for the preferential treatment u/s 44 BB of the income

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 171/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

26,996/- by making additions/disallowances of Rs.77,91,617/- on two grounds: Rs, 60,39,706/- u/s. 40(a)(i) on account of non-compliance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B and Rs. 17,51,912/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account of non-compliance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B. 3.1. Aggrieved with the order

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

26,996/- by making additions/disallowances of Rs.77,91,617/- on two grounds: Rs, 60,39,706/- u/s. 40(a)(i) on account of non-compliance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B and Rs. 17,51,912/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account of non-compliance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B. 3.1. Aggrieved with the order