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.

35 results for “TDS”+ Section 32(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,236Delhi2,190Bangalore1,146Chennai762Kolkata471Hyderabad333Ahmedabad286Indore202Chandigarh186Karnataka185Jaipur180Cochin170Raipur159Pune153Surat78Rajkot70Visakhapatnam65Nagpur65Lucknow57Cuttack49Ranchi45Dehradun35Guwahati23Amritsar23Patna20Agra17Allahabad17Telangana16SC12Kerala9Jodhpur9Panaji8Jabalpur6Varanasi6Calcutta4Uttarakhand2Rajasthan2Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 44B156Section 143(3)19Section 915Addition to Income14Deduction12Section 9(1)(vii)8Disallowance8Section 2637Exemption7Permanent Establishment

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

32,23,63,873included in the revenue chargeable to tax as against said receipts not chargeable to tax being pure reimbursement. 3. Before the CIT(A), the assessee made elaborate arguments and also filed the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 in which all the issues were decided in some

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

6
Section 44D4
Section 36(1)(va)4

DCIT, CIRCLE- I, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. DEEPWATER PACIFIC 1 INC., DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6001/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N.S.Jangpangi, CIT-DR
Section 44B

32,986 had been validly excluded from the assessee's business income for the relevant assessment year?”. However, there the Assessee did not deposit the amount collected by it as sales tax in the State exchequer since it took the stand that the statutory provision creating that liability upon it was not valid. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held

DCIT, CIRCLE- II, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. R & B FALCON (A) PTY LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4642/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T.S.Mapwal, Sr. DR
Section 44B

32,986 had been validly excluded from the assessee's business income for the relevant assessment year?”. However, there the Assessee did not deposit the amount collected by it as sales tax in the State exchequer since it took the stand that the statutory provision creating that liability upon it was not valid. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held

DCIT, CIRCLE- II, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. R & B FALCON (A) PTY LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4641/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T.S.Mapwal, Sr. DR
Section 44B

32,986 had been validly excluded from the assessee's business income for the relevant assessment year?”. However, there the Assessee did not deposit the amount collected by it as sales tax in the State exchequer since it took the stand that the statutory provision creating that liability upon it was not valid. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN vs. TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE INTERNATIONAL VENTURE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4653/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Amit Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Narendra Singh Jangpangi, CIT- DR
Section 44B

32,986 had been validly excluded from the assessee's business income for the relevant assessment year?”. However, there the Assessee did not deposit the amount collected by it as sales tax in the State exchequer since it took the stand that the statutory provision creating that liability upon it was not valid. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held

SAEXPLORATION INC INDIA PROJECTS OFFICE,DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5/DDN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Taran Preet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44B

32,986 had been validly excluded from the assessee's business income for the relevant assessment year?”. However, there the Assessee did not deposit the amount collected by it as sales tax in the State exchequer since it took the stand that the statutory provision creating that liability upon it was not valid. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held

SHERWATER GEOSERVICES LTD. INDIA PROJECT OFFICE,DEHRADUN vs. AICT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/DDN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44B

32,986 had been validly excluded from the assessee's business income for the relevant assessment year?”. However, there the Assessee did not deposit the amount collected by it as sales tax in the State exchequer since it took the stand that the statutory provision creating that liability upon it was not valid. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING INC, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6175/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T.S.Mapwal, Sr. DR
Section 44B

32,986 had been validly excluded from the assessee's business income for the relevant assessment year?”. However, there the Assessee did not deposit the amount collected by it as sales tax in the State exchequer since it took the stand that the statutory provision creating that liability upon it was not valid. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN vs. TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE INTERNATIONAL VENTURE LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6174/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T.S.Mapwal, Sr. DR
Section 44B

32,986 had been validly excluded from the assessee's business income for the relevant assessment year?”. However, there the Assessee did not deposit the amount collected by it as sales tax in the State exchequer since it took the stand that the statutory provision creating that liability upon it was not valid. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held

DCIT, CIRCLE-II, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. TRITON HOLDINGS LTD., DEHRADUNA

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4640/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Amit Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T.S. Mapwal, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 44B

32,986 had been validly excluded from the assessee's business income for the relevant assessment year?”. However, there the Assessee did not deposit the amount collected by it as sales tax in the State exchequer since it took the stand that the statutory provision creating that liability upon it was not valid. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held

DCIT, CIRCLE-II, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. TRITON HOLDINGS LTD., DEHRADUNA

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4639/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Amit Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T.S. Mapwal, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 44B

32,986 had been validly excluded from the assessee's business income for the relevant assessment year?”. However, there the Assessee did not deposit the amount collected by it as sales tax in the State exchequer since it took the stand that the statutory provision creating that liability upon it was not valid. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held

DCIT, CIRCLE- II, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE INTERNATIONAL (BERMUDA) LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4643/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT-DR
Section 44B

32,986 had been validly excluded from the assessee's business income for the relevant assessment year?”. However, there the Assessee did not deposit the amount collected by it as sales tax in the State exchequer since it took the stand that the statutory provision creating that liability upon it was not valid. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held

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

32. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5564/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that no distinction can be made between receipts from PSC and Non-PSC Partners, ignoring the facts that the receipts from

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

32. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5564/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that no distinction can be made between receipts from PSC and Non-PSC Partners, ignoring the facts that the receipts from

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

32. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5564/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that no distinction can be made between receipts from PSC and Non-PSC Partners, ignoring the facts that the receipts from

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

32. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5564/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that no distinction can be made between receipts from PSC and Non-PSC Partners, ignoring the facts that the receipts from

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

32. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5564/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that no distinction can be made between receipts from PSC and Non-PSC Partners, ignoring the facts that the receipts from

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

32. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5564/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that no distinction can be made between receipts from PSC and Non-PSC Partners, ignoring the facts that the receipts from

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

32. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5564/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that no distinction can be made between receipts from PSC and Non-PSC Partners, ignoring the facts that the receipts from

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE INTERNATIONAL (BERMUDA) LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4298/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4298/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Dcit(International Taxation), Vs Sundowner Offshore Circle-2, International (Bermuda) Ltd., Dehradun C/O Nangia & Co., 3Rd Floor, Ncr Plaza, New Cantt. Road, Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs0550M Assessee By : Sh. Amit Arora, Ca Revenue By : Sh. T.S. Mapwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T.S. Mapwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44B

32,986 had been validly excluded 7 Sundowner Offshore International (Bermuda) Ltd. from the assessee's business income for the relevant assessment year?". However, there the Assessee did not deposit the amount collected by it as sales tax in the State exchequer since it took the stand that the statutory provision creating that liability upon it was not valid