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.

11 results for “TDS”+ Section 151Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai23Ahmedabad19Delhi11Chennai10Chandigarh9Agra5Hyderabad5Rajkot5Visakhapatnam5Lucknow4Jaipur4Kolkata1Cochin1Raipur1Pune1Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 14830Section 14724Section 148A23Reassessment8Section 144C(13)7Section 151A7Section 153(2)6Section 149(1)(b)6Reopening of Assessment6Survey u/s 133A

COMPAREX INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2151/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

TDS') of INR 1,66,68,496/- instead of INR 1,69,80,644- 2. On the facts and in law, the Ld. AO has erred while computing the tax liability for relevant AY by not allowing deduction on account of Section 80G amounting to INR 15,14,475/- already claimed by the Appellant in its Return of Income. Interest

6
Limitation/Time-bar6
Section 92C4

ATAR SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 70 (1)-DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Mr. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 282Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

TDS credit of Rs.4,000/- duly reflected in Form\n26AS not allowed by the AO.\n\n6. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. The\nappellant may be allowed to add/amend/withdraw any grounds of appeal at the\ntime of hearing or at any time before hearing with due permission of the Hon'ble\nTribunal.\"\n\nThe

SRI LANKA CRICKET,SRI LANKA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX) CIRCLE- 3 (1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 1603/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 270A

TDS purposes. The application\nunder section 154 of the Act was to treat the sum of Rs.28,70,32,330/- as\nreceipt instead of Rs.121,86,67,498/- as royalty.\n4.2 During the course of reassessment proceeding and the proceedings\nbefore the DRP, the appellant assessee submitted that the payment made by\nthe Lex Sportel was not in the nature

HCL TECHNOLOGIES MEXICO S DE RL DE CV,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2301/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Surbhi Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 153(2)

151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 3. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 3.1 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not following the bindingdecision of the Delhi bench of the Tribunal rendered on identical facts

HCL TECHNOLOGIES MEXICO S DE RL DE CV,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2302/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Surbhi Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 153(2)

151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 3. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 3.1 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not following the bindingdecision of the Delhi bench of the Tribunal rendered on identical facts

HCL TECHNOLOGIES MEXICO S DE RL DE CV,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 2303/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Surbhi Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 153(2)

151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 3. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 3.1 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not following the bindingdecision of the Delhi bench of the Tribunal rendered on identical facts

HCL SINGAPORE PTE. LTD (SUCCESSOR TO AXON SOLUTIONS SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED),DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2298/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not following the binding decision of the Delhi bench of the Tribunal rendered on identical facts

HCL TECHNOLOGIES NORWAY AS ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2300/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not following the binding decision of the Delhi bench of the Tribunal rendered on identical facts

HCL AUSTRALIA SERVICES PTY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

ITA 2299/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153(2)

151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not following the binding decision of the Delhi bench of the Tribunal rendered on identical facts

VINAY KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT., DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4452/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 120Section 127Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 56

section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the reason ‘non-filing of return’ as well as based on the information that assessee has deposited Rs.10,00,000/- or more in the 2 saving bank account and interest on the same were not declared. Accordingly, notices were issued. Several opportunities were given to the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(1), NEW DELHI vs. VENUS REALTORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4452/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 120Section 127Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 56

section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the reason ‘non-filing of return’ as well as based on the information that assessee has deposited Rs.10,00,000/- or more in the 2 saving bank account and interest on the same were not declared. Accordingly, notices were issued. Several opportunities were given to the assessee