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.

2 results for “TDS”+ Section 271Gclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore30Karnataka21Mumbai20Indore9Chennai7Delhi5Panaji5Kolkata2Dehradun2Visakhapatnam1SC1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 44B7Section 143(3)3Depreciation2TDS2Addition to Income2Natural Justice2

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

TDS in accordance with law. Accordingly, the ground no12 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 27. The Ground No. 16 raised by the assessee is regarding initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271G and section

M.B. PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6608/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Oct 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Smt. Shashi M Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Kumar, Addl.CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 271GSection 40aSection 44BSection 44D

Section 44DA of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in disallowing the cost of materials of Rs. 493,200/- on the ground that the expense could not be verified. 6. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred