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.

2,577 results for “TDS”+ Section 26clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,577Mumbai2,529Bangalore1,449Chennai936Kolkata602Pune478Hyderabad405Cochin364Ahmedabad354Jaipur254Indore235Raipur217Chandigarh208Karnataka186Surat120Nagpur90Lucknow82Rajkot82Visakhapatnam78Cuttack62Amritsar42Guwahati38Ranchi38Dehradun33Agra24Allahabad21Panaji20Jodhpur18Telangana18Patna17SC14Jabalpur14Kerala11Varanasi9Calcutta4Uttarakhand3Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1Orissa1

Key Topics

Addition to Income52Disallowance40TDS37Section 143(3)35Section 4023Double Taxation/DTAA22Deduction19Section 14A17Section 153A15Section 133(6)

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - 18 vs. M/S. DLF COMMERCIAL PROJECTS CORPORATION

The appeals are disposed of in the

ITA/226/2018HC Delhi23 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 13(1)(ia)Section 24Section 26

26 years or becomes financial independent, whichever is earlier. The amount of maintenance shall be subject to increase by 10% after every two years starting from the next date of birth of the child, i.e., 28th May 2019.” [emphasis is ours] 34. In view of the discussion above, no interference is called for with the aforesaid directions contained

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with

ITA/194/2004HC Delhi

Showing 1–20 of 2,577 · Page 1 of 129

...
13
Penalty12
Permanent Establishment12
01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271

26. For all of the aforementioned, the Court considers it necessary therefore to re-cast the question that has been framed on 5th September 2005. Analysis of Section 271-C 27. At this stage, it is important to note that the other questions urged by the Appellant are: (a) Whether the penalty under Section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. But the revenue's contention is that the payments are in the nature of machinery hire charges falling under the head 'rent' and the previous provisions of section 194-I of the Act are applicable. According to revenue, the assessee has deducted tax @ 1% u/s. 194C(2) of the Act as against

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. But the revenue's contention is that the payments are in the nature of machinery hire charges falling under the head 'rent' and the previous provisions of section 194-I of the Act are applicable. According to revenue, the assessee has deducted tax @ 1% u/s. 194C(2) of the Act as against

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. But the revenue's contention is that the payments are in the nature of machinery hire charges falling under the head 'rent' and the previous provisions of section 194-I of the Act are applicable. According to revenue, the assessee has deducted tax @ 1% u/s. 194C(2) of the Act as against

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6258/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234E

TDS returns. In the absence of enabling provisions, levy of fees could not be effected in the course of intimation issued under section 200A of the Act prior to 01.06.2015. 25. The Amritsar Bench of Tribunal in Sibia Health Care (P.) Ltd.v. Dy. CIT [2016] 65 taxmann.com 105 had held that the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6257/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234E

TDS returns. In the absence of enabling provisions, levy of fees could not be effected in the course of intimation issued under section 200A of the Act prior to 01.06.2015. 25. The Amritsar Bench of Tribunal in Sibia Health Care (P.) Ltd.v. Dy. CIT [2016] 65 taxmann.com 105 had held that the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6259/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234E

TDS returns. In the absence of enabling provisions, levy of fees could not be effected in the course of intimation issued under section 200A of the Act prior to 01.06.2015. 25. The Amritsar Bench of Tribunal in Sibia Health Care (P.) Ltd.v. Dy. CIT [2016] 65 taxmann.com 105 had held that the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under

SERCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1432/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

26 Serco India Pvt. Ltd. 3. TDS was required to be deducted under section 192 or 195. 4. TDS in section

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

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

EBNOY HOMES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 74(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1101/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 234ESection 271Section 271H

TDS, because the payments made to each seller was less than the prescribed limit of Rs.50 lacs and therefore, provision of section 194IA was not applicable. The demand has been raised by the department u/s 200 in terms of failure to comply with Section 200A, which deals 25 with the processing of statement of tax deducted at source

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3779/DEL/2013[2007-08 (F.Y. 2006-07)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

TDS Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue and hence, 'Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked in the present case. Even on merits of .the case, roaming charges paid VDL to the other telecom operators do not qualify as FTS for the purpose of the Act and hence, are not subject to tax deduction

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3780/DEL/2013[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007- 08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

TDS Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue and hence, 'Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked in the present case. Even on merits of .the case, roaming charges paid VDL to the other telecom operators do not qualify as FTS for the purpose of the Act and hence, are not subject to tax deduction

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3781/DEL/2013[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

TDS Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue and hence, 'Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked in the present case. Even on merits of .the case, roaming charges paid VDL to the other telecom operators do not qualify as FTS for the purpose of the Act and hence, are not subject to tax deduction

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 716/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

TDS Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue and hence, 'Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked in the present case. Even on merits of .the case, roaming charges paid VDL to the other telecom operators do not qualify as FTS for the purpose of the Act and hence, are not subject to tax deduction

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 717/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

TDS Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue and hence, 'Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked in the present case. Even on merits of .the case, roaming charges paid VDL to the other telecom operators do not qualify as FTS for the purpose of the Act and hence, are not subject to tax deduction

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 718/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

TDS Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue and hence, 'Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked in the present case. Even on merits of .the case, roaming charges paid VDL to the other telecom operators do not qualify as FTS for the purpose of the Act and hence, are not subject to tax deduction

BATHLINE INDIA (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 9336/DEL/2019[2013-14 (24Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 54

section 200A where the date of filing of TDS statement and date of intimation are much prior to 01.06.2015:- i) Prakash Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA Nos.5865 to 5869/Del/2016, order dated 29.07.2019; ii) M/s Ajvin Infotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.2305 & 2306/Del/2017, order dated 04.03.2020; iii) M/s D.D. Motors, Haryana vs. DCIT, ITA NO.956/Del/2017, order dated

BATHLINE INDIA (PVT.) LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 9341/DEL/2019[2013-14 (26Q,Q-4)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 54

section 200A where the date of filing of TDS statement and date of intimation are much prior to 01.06.2015:- i) Prakash Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA Nos.5865 to 5869/Del/2016, order dated 29.07.2019; ii) M/s Ajvin Infotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.2305 & 2306/Del/2017, order dated 04.03.2020; iii) M/s D.D. Motors, Haryana vs. DCIT, ITA NO.956/Del/2017, order dated