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.

2,122 results for “TDS”+ Section 36(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,122Mumbai2,087Bangalore1,107Chennai807Kolkata555Ahmedabad478Hyderabad443Pune285Indore266Chandigarh249Jaipur245Cochin241Raipur182Karnataka168Visakhapatnam131Surat97Cuttack97Rajkot86Jabalpur83Lucknow72Nagpur58Ranchi43Amritsar41Guwahati38Jodhpur30Agra25Dehradun24Telangana18Allahabad17Panaji17Varanasi13Patna12SC10Kerala7Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan5Uttarakhand2Calcutta2J&K1

Key Topics

Addition to Income66Disallowance50TDS38Section 143(3)36Deduction33Section 14A30Section 14719Section 919Double Taxation/DTAA17Section 40

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1615/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 37

section 36(2) which provides that no deduction on account of bad debts shall be allowed unless such bad debt or part thereof has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which amount of such debts or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year, or represents money

Showing 1–20 of 2,122 · Page 1 of 107

...
16
Section 3715
Section 153A14

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

ITA/255/2002HC Delhi14 Mar 2014
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

36 of 61 in the assumption of jurisdiction and the orders of assessment in those proceedings cannot be held to be without jurisdiction and no suit will lie for impeaching them on the ground that Section 10(1) had not been followed. This must a fortiori be so when the appellant has itself submitted to the jurisdiction and made

COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XVI vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

ITA - 255 / 2002HC Delhi14 Mar 2014
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

36 of 61 in the assumption of jurisdiction and the orders of assessment in those proceedings cannot be held to be without jurisdiction and no suit will lie for impeaching them on the ground that Section 10(1) had not been followed. This must a fortiori be so when the appellant has itself submitted to the jurisdiction and made

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6454/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

TDS Payable 4.363.060 4.363.060 Other Current Liabilities 583.059 583.059 Provision for Interest on Loan 39.267.539 39.267.539 Liabilities (B) 44,483,658 44,483,658 C=(A+B) 1,243,424,451 2,984,397,259 Unsecured Loan (Thomson Press India Limited) 819.187,525 819,187,525 Total Firm Value 4.24.236.926 2.165.749.734 Net Finn Value 424,236,926 2

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6453/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

TDS Payable 4.363.060 4.363.060 Other Current Liabilities 583.059 583.059 Provision for Interest on Loan 39.267.539 39.267.539 Liabilities (B) 44,483,658 44,483,658 C=(A+B) 1,243,424,451 2,984,397,259 Unsecured Loan (Thomson Press India Limited) 819.187,525 819,187,525 Total Firm Value 4.24.236.926 2.165.749.734 Net Finn Value 424,236,926 2

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA - 441 / 2003HC Delhi31 Jul 2013

36. The Tribunal held, after noticing the nature of the scheme that before attaining the age of 65 or before death, neither the assessee nor his survivors were entitled to get any benefit from the scheme and at the most the employee only had a contingent right which cannot attract Section 17(2)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal also

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA/441/2003HC Delhi31 Jul 2013

36. The Tribunal held, after noticing the nature of the scheme that before attaining the age of 65 or before death, neither the assessee nor his survivors were entitled to get any benefit from the scheme and at the most the employee only had a contingent right which cannot attract Section 17(2)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal also

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA-441/2003HC Delhi31 Jul 2013

36. The Tribunal held, after noticing the nature of the scheme that before attaining the age of 65 or before death, neither the assessee nor his survivors were entitled to get any benefit from the scheme and at the most the employee only had a contingent right which cannot attract Section 17(2)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal also

HEBE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: Sr. D. R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43B

36(1)(va), Section 43B, Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provisions of Finance Act 2021, Memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Bill, 2021 and the specific amendments which will take effect from 01.04.2021, we hereby hold that no disallowance is called for belated payment of the employee’s contribution to the respective ESI and EPF fund

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 2162/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,13,55,875/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 7273/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,13,55,875/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 7433/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,13,55,875/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 2175/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,13,55,875/- under section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

ITA 1332/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

Section 144CSection 44Section 44BSection 9

2) is not merely a provision to provide information to the ITO(TDS). It is a provision requiring tax to be deducted as source to be paid to the Revenue by the payer who makes payment to a non-resident. Therefore, Section 195 has to be read in conformity with the charging provisions, ie., Sections 4, 5 and 9. This

INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 622/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Brij Kishor Anand, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr.D.R

Section Transaction Status Date of Remarks Amount Tax TDS . of Booking Date paid/Credited Deducted Deposited Booking 1 194J 31-Mar- F 20-May- " 462280.00 46228.00 46228.00 2014 2014 2 194J 31-Mar- F 20-May- " 358200.00 35820.00 35820.00 2014 2014 3 194J 31-Dec- F 15-Jan- 436856.00 43686.00 43686.00 2013 2014 4 194J

DCIT, CIRCLE- 62(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAMESH KUMAR PABBI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6168/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit Vs. Ramesh Kumar Pabbi Circle – 62(1), A-41, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi-110017 Pan – Aanpp 5995 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sohail Malik, Sr.D.R. Revenue By Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 2(22)(e)Section 40

36,985/- by M/s S.L. Enterprises, a proprietorship concern to M/s Ramsan Communications Ltd. in respect of sum of Rs. 2,41,50,000/- treated as deemed dividend therefore said company was compensated by way of interest paid by the assessee and assessee in real sense did not derive any benefit from the funds of the company

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 Delhi01 Aug 2016

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

Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271

2 taxmann.com 32 (Del) and CIT v. Cadbury India Ltd (2011) 11 taxmann.com 66(Del) and submitted that there was reasonable cause for the Appellant‟s failure to deduct TDS under Section 194-I of the Act. 32. Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the Revenue, first submitted that the conduct of the Assessee did not entitle

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI COUNTRYWIDE AUTO FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3455/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 36(2), the onus was on the assessee to produce the party-wise details alongwith their complete addresses, PANs, TANs so as to enable the Assessing Officer to make verification as to the correct nature of amount 11 claimed by the assessee. It is also made clear that once the assessee proceeds to set off the receivables (TDS

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

section 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from such customer. The said amendment also provided that contract for carrying out work shall not include contract

M/S. SPAR KROGNOS MARKETING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5436/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5436/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1375/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 1. M/S Spar Krognos Marketing Vs Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Exevo Building, G- Ward-9(1), 6/B-1, Mohan Cooperative New Delhi Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 2. C/O S S Kothari Mehta & Co. (Chartered Accountants), 146- 148, Tribhuvan Complex Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics2241J Assessee By : Sh. H. P. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.02.2020

For Appellant: Sh. H. P. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 234BSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)

section 36(2) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed, if any, on this issue before various Courts/Tribunals may be withdrawn/not pressed upon. 6. This may be brought to the notice of all concerned. 13. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court