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.

466 results for “TDS”+ Section 145clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai573Delhi466Kolkata227Bangalore212Chennai149Karnataka114Chandigarh111Hyderabad98Jaipur96Ahmedabad92Cochin73Pune53Raipur40Lucknow40Ranchi34Visakhapatnam31Surat30Indore27Agra22Amritsar19Rajkot17Jodhpur14Dehradun12Allahabad12Nagpur11Patna8Guwahati8Varanasi6Panaji3Calcutta2Jabalpur2SC2J&K1

Key Topics

Addition to Income82Section 143(3)47Disallowance42Section 6841TDS37Section 14728Section 3724Section 2824Section 145(3)20Deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 466 · Page 1 of 24

...
20
Section 14819
Section 13218
ITA 714/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
30 Oct 2025
AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 713/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 115BAA from AY 2020-21 onwards. Accordingly, the excess margins accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellant in earlier years (as per POCM) have already been offered to tax at a higher rate of 35% and the said margins would again be taxed in the subsequent years at the time of sale of built-up units

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD vs. PRAHLAD, PALWAL

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as above

ITA 42/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 145(3)Section 146(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 145(3) to reject Books of accounts even when the prevalent facts did not require rejection simply because purchases to the extent of Rs.2,12,26,191/- were found to be inflated. 1 Prahlad 3. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.96,94,500/- u/s 40(a)(ia), for admitted failure to deduct tax on labour charges

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. DEEPTI AGARWAL, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3609/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Deepti Agarwal, Circle-31(1), Room No. 1405, Prop M/S. Superior Fabrics, 14Th Floor, E-2, Block, Maharaja Lane, Civil Lines, Prataykshkar Bhawan, Dr. New Delhi Shyama Prasad, Mukherjee Civc Pan: Aampa0573C Centre, Jn Nehru Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 40Section 80I

Section 145(3) invoked by the AO for rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law by allowing deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC to the tune of Rs. 4,67,93,495/- for her Dehradun Unit whereas the assessee had not fulfilled all the conditions required for claiming deduction u/s 80IC

M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 153ASection 292CSection 37Section 69Section 92C

section 145, which concerns are correct and complete account but which, in the opinion of the officer, does not disclose the true and proper income.” 35. Further at page number 53 the honourable Supreme Court further held that:- “it is not only the right but the duty of the assessing officer to consider whether or not the books disclose

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARAGON XT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 363/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 194C

TDS Certificates have to be given credit to. In my humble opinion, the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned Judicial Member, does not in any way alter the year of assessability of income, which is governed under sections 28, 29 and 145

VEDANTA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1454/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivedanta Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Sterlite Circle-26(1), Industries (India) Ltd,) New Delhi Core-6, 3Rd Floor, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaccs7101B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 263Section 271

TDS claim of the Appellant despite having specifically recorded that the AO had not made any observations in this regard. 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO of levying interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Act 12. That on facts and circumstances

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HCL COMNET LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 6142/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS. He, accordingly, made a disallowance of Rs. 2,55,57,990/-. 5.5. Before ld. CIT(A) the assessee, inter alia, submitted as under: (a) AO has not analyzed the taxability of AMC payments under the provisions of the Act and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (hereinafter referred to as “DTAA”), entered between India and respective foreign country and summarily disallowed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HCL COMNET LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 321/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS. He, accordingly, made a disallowance of Rs. 2,55,57,990/-. 5.5. Before ld. CIT(A) the assessee, inter alia, submitted as under: (a) AO has not analyzed the taxability of AMC payments under the provisions of the Act and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (hereinafter referred to as “DTAA”), entered between India and respective foreign country and summarily disallowed

HCL COMNET LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 5898/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS. He, accordingly, made a disallowance of Rs. 2,55,57,990/-. 5.5. Before ld. CIT(A) the assessee, inter alia, submitted as under: (a) AO has not analyzed the taxability of AMC payments under the provisions of the Act and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (hereinafter referred to as “DTAA”), entered between India and respective foreign country and summarily disallowed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HCL COMNET LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 5651/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS. He, accordingly, made a disallowance of Rs. 2,55,57,990/-. 5.5. Before ld. CIT(A) the assessee, inter alia, submitted as under: (a) AO has not analyzed the taxability of AMC payments under the provisions of the Act and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (hereinafter referred to as “DTAA”), entered between India and respective foreign country and summarily disallowed

HCL COMNET LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result this ground is dismissed

ITA 5907/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS. He, accordingly, made a disallowance of Rs. 2,55,57,990/-. 5.5. Before ld. CIT(A) the assessee, inter alia, submitted as under: (a) AO has not analyzed the taxability of AMC payments under the provisions of the Act and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (hereinafter referred to as “DTAA”), entered between India and respective foreign country and summarily disallowed

M/S. RAJ BUILDCON CONSTRUCTION LTD.,,GURGAON vs. JCIT, GURGAON

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

ITA 2422/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Raj Buildcon Vs. Jcit(A), Construction Ltd., Range-Ii, Gurgaon (Haryana) 404, Welldone Tech Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan :Aadcr6387F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 3

section 145(3) of the Act is justified. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is well reasoned and we do not find any error in the same. 5. The next issue relates to the turnover of the assessee company. According to the Assessing Officer gross receipts from contract and professional work is reflected

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

section 145 of the Income Tax Act though the DISCOMS were depositing TDS to the credit of company against LPSC

SMEC INTERNATIONAL PTY. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 5926/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Range-2, M/S. Smec International Pvt. Ltd., Bansal’S Flat, P-39 , 1St New Delhi Floor, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi Pan : Aaics3406K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. M. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Sh. Anuj Arora, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/10/2012 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2008-09. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed Giving Effect To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (In Short ‘Drp’). The Grounds Raised In Appeal Were Modified Through An Application Dated 24/09/2015, Which Are Reproduced As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessing Officer Has Erred In Rejecting Books Of Account As There Are No Descrepancies & The Lower Profit Is No Reason To Reject The Books Of Account & The A O Is Also Wrong In Holding That The Separate Project Wise

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 163Section 40Section 44BSection 44D

TDS was deducted. Further, the expenditure was controlled and monitored by the Australian office through a multilayer authorization internal process. (iii) It was further explained that the companies business was very diverse and no hard and fast rules could be made for determination of the profit and the company had to manage the overall business at all the sites, without

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PEARL BOTTLING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 5305/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 145(2)Section 153A

145(2) of the Act by the AO and therefore, the AO recomputed the income at Rs. 2,66,81,850/- on account of profits and gain of business and profession, which does not need any interference. In support of her contention, she stated that following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to addition on account of rejection

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PEARL BOTTLING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 5306/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 145(2)Section 153A

145(2) of the Act by the AO and therefore, the AO recomputed the income at Rs. 2,66,81,850/- on account of profits and gain of business and profession, which does not need any interference. In support of her contention, she stated that following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to addition on account of rejection