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.

17 results for “TDS”+ Section 44Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi17Mumbai11Pune3Patna2Cuttack1Hyderabad1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)29Section 153A28Disallowance16Addition to Income16Natural Justice14Section 201(1)4Section 444Section 1972Section 22Section 43B2TDS2

GIESECKE & DEVRIENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 04, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7075/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] Giesecke & Devrient [India] Pvt Ltd Vs. The Addl. C.I.T Corporate Office, Plot No. 57, Special Range -04 Sector 44, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan: Aabcg 4223 D [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40a

TDS certificates along with the return and claim credit for the tax deducted at source. Many a time, the tax deducted or a part thereof is required to be refunded to the assessee. Thus, the procedure for tax collection is cumbersome and involves a lot of paper work.” 54. Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2003 reiterates that it is easier

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3608/DEL/2015[2006-07 (F.Y.- 2005-06)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., Ward-74(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Dlf Centre, 9Th Floor, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Sansad Marg, New Delhi Pan :Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Praveen Kumar, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca

Section 133ASection 194ASection 194ISection 194JSection 197Section 2Section 2(28)Section 201(1)Section 44A

44A of the Act and thus the said sum is not chargeable for deduction of tax at source under section 194J of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and held that bank/institutions who issued the bill for such charges have included service tax in the bill raised by them, which shows that both payments

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE LTD., LUCKNOW

ITA 4639/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Vijay Kumar Chadha, Senior DR
Section 14ASection 43BSection 44

TDS. AO also made disallowance of Rs.23,16,650/- on account of disallowance of bonus unpaid u/s 43B of the Act. AO also made addition of Rs.4929,247/- by way of disallowance of Leave Encashment 3 ITA No.4639/Del./2016 Unpaid u/s 43B and thereby assessed the total income at Rs.46,31,25,289/- 3. Assessee carried the matter

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1199/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1200/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1201/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1202/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1338/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1196/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1340/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1341/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1342/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1343/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1344/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1339/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1197/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1198/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers