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.

4,618 results for “TDS”+ Section 11(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,672Delhi4,618Bangalore2,377Chennai1,707Kolkata1,193Pune885Hyderabad604Ahmedabad563Jaipur407Indore370Raipur350Karnataka308Cochin304Chandigarh280Nagpur261Surat207Visakhapatnam179Rajkot144Lucknow125Cuttack91Amritsar76Jodhpur66Patna60Ranchi54Dehradun52Agra45Telangana44Panaji41Guwahati38Jabalpur22SC21Allahabad15Calcutta13Kerala13Himachal Pradesh8Varanasi7Rajasthan6J&K3Punjab & Haryana3Uttarakhand3Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14A56Addition to Income56TDS44Disallowance36Deduction36Section 143(3)35Section 26328Section 4028Section 194C20Section 28

M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1723/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihcl Technologies Ltd, Acit(Tds), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14Th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida Pan: Aaach1645P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

TDS statement, it is proposed to omit clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 201. 10.5 Mr.M.R. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue has vehemently submitted that the legislature can provide for a larger period of limitation. In support of his above submission, he has heavily relied upon the following decisions

Showing 1–20 of 4,618 · Page 1 of 231

...
18
Section 918
Section 12A15

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

ITA 4622/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 68

11 and 12 shall not apply if any income of the trust enures or used or apply directly or indirectly, for the benefit of persons specified under sub-section 3 of the act. Sub-section provides that without prejudice to the provisions of section 13(1)(c) the income of the trust shall be deemed to have been used

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2872/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1131/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2871/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1142/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2675/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1040/DEL/2020[2013-14 (26Q-Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

TDS return or levy of fees under section 234E of the IT Act for the reason of 234E being mandatory levy occurring on the point of default and on the date of default charging section was very much in existence and was effective. 10.14.1 Hon’ble ITAT in its order dt.29.11.2019, has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1027/DEL/2020[2015-16 24Q, (Q-1)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

TDS return or levy of fees under section 234E of the IT Act for the reason of 234E being mandatory levy occurring on the point of default and on the date of default charging section was very much in existence and was effective. 10.14.1 Hon’ble ITAT in its order dt.29.11.2019, has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka

DCIT, LAXMINAGAR vs. TURNER GENERAL ENTERTAINMENT NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MAHIPALPUR DELHI

In the result, assessee's appeal is partly

ITA 473/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Vs Turner General Laxmi Nagar Entertainment Net Works New Delhi India Limited Mahipalpur Delhi Tan No. Deln08096E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 271CSection 3

TDS statement, the limitation period of two years remained unchanged. The aforesaid sub-section (3) of section 201 was again amended by Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1st October 2014 by substituting the earlier provision with the following :- "(3) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) deeming a person to be an assessee in default for failure to deduct

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4050/DEL/2016[2015-16 (F.Y. 2014-15)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

11. The learned DR pointed out that the issue arising in the present set of appeals is whether the payment of late fees under section 234E of the Act can be charged under section 200A of the Act, wherein clause (c) was inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015. He further referred to the Chapter XVIIB of the Act, which provide deduction

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4051/DEL/2016[2014-15 (F.Y. 2013-14)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

11. The learned DR pointed out that the issue arising in the present set of appeals is whether the payment of late fees under section 234E of the Act can be charged under section 200A of the Act, wherein clause (c) was inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015. He further referred to the Chapter XVIIB of the Act, which provide deduction

RAMA DEVI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 4434/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 40

TDS u/s 40(a)(ia). Against the assessment order, the Assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 30.3.2017 has enhanced the income at Rs. 2,61,15,153/-. Ld. CIT(A), discussed the concept and theory of charitable purposes as defined in section 2(15) and conditions laid down in section 11 to section

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS ,GAUTAM BUDH NAGER vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2554/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

11. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue broadly reiterated the observations made by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in granting partial relief against the disallowances so carried out. It was submitted that Assessing Officer has pain stakingly pointed out the defects in the books

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTONS ,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT CENTAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2555/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

11. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue broadly reiterated the observations made by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in granting partial relief against the disallowances so carried out. It was submitted that Assessing Officer has pain stakingly pointed out the defects in the books

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION,GAUTAM BUDH NAGER vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2556/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

11. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue broadly reiterated the observations made by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in granting partial relief against the disallowances so carried out. It was submitted that Assessing Officer has pain stakingly pointed out the defects in the books

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2557/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

11. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue broadly reiterated the observations made by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in granting partial relief against the disallowances so carried out. It was submitted that Assessing Officer has pain stakingly pointed out the defects in the books

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2558/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

11. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue broadly reiterated the observations made by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in granting partial relief against the disallowances so carried out. It was submitted that Assessing Officer has pain stakingly pointed out the defects in the books

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2559/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

11. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue broadly reiterated the observations made by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in granting partial relief against the disallowances so carried out. It was submitted that Assessing Officer has pain stakingly pointed out the defects in the books

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2839/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

11. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue broadly reiterated the observations made by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in granting partial relief against the disallowances so carried out. It was submitted that Assessing Officer has pain stakingly pointed out the defects in the books