Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

28 results for “TDS”+ Section 44Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai49 Delhi28 Chennai13 Hyderabad3 Jodhpur2

Key Topics

Section 44B37 Section 143(3)33 Section 153A28 Addition to Income18 Disallowance17 Natural Justice14 Section 15411 Section 271(1)(c)9 Section 44D8 Section 9(1)(vii)6 Section 142(1)6 TDS5

KGL NETWORK (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 14(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 301/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Priyansh Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Verma, CIT-D.R

Section 234ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 44B

TDS against the assessee-company. The assessee- company has not violated the provisions of Section 44B r.w.s. 172 of the I.T. Act as well

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SCORPION COURAGEOUS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

ITA 4619/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 44BSection 44DSection 9

TDS) under Section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid any future hassles for both resident as well as non resident. In our view, Sections 195(2) and 195(3) are safeguards. The said provisions are of practical importance. This reasoning of ours is based on the decision

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. EXPRO GULF LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 6589/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

section 44B of the Act; (ii). Whether service tax receipts would form the part of gross receipts/turnover; and 6 ITA No.6589/Del./2014 & CO No. 221/Del./2015 (iii). Whether interest u/s. 234B is chargeable in the case of payments made to non-resident where TDS

PACIFIC CREST PTE LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(2)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 661/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 115ASection 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 195Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vi)

44B, the following section shall be inserted and shall be deemed to have been inserted with effect from the 1st day of April 1983, namely: — Special provision for computing, profits and gains in connection with the business of exploration, etc., of mineral oils. '44BB (1) Notwithstanding .anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 41 and sections

M/S. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed whereas the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4468/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. N. K. Billaiya

Section 1Section 115Section 250(6)Section 44Section 44BSection 9

44B (2) read with Section 44 BB (1). The service tax is not and amount paid or payable, or received or deemed to be received by the Assessee for the services rendered by it. The only collecting the service tax for passing it on to the Government. 18. The Court further notes that the position has been made explicit

M/S. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed whereas the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4467/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. N. K. Billaiya

Section 1Section 115Section 250(6)Section 44Section 44BSection 9

44B (2) read with Section 44 BB (1). The service tax is not and amount paid or payable, or received or deemed to be received by the Assessee for the services rendered by it. The only collecting the service tax for passing it on to the Government. 18. The Court further notes that the position has been made explicit

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WORLD SPORT NIMBUS PTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly appeals filed by the learned AO for all 3 years are dismissed

ITA 6096/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Hauthang, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

44B read with section 115A of The Income Tax Act 1961. 9. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the coordinate bench preferred the appeal before the honourable Delhi High Court wherein the following substantial question of law were referred ;- „ (i) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the tribunal justified in law in holding

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WORLD SPORT NIMBUS PTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly appeals filed by the learned AO for all 3 years are dismissed

ITA 6095/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Hauthang, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

44B read with section 115A of The Income Tax Act 1961. 9. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the coordinate bench preferred the appeal before the honourable Delhi High Court wherein the following substantial question of law were referred ;- „ (i) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the tribunal justified in law in holding

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WORLD SPORT NIMBUS PTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly appeals filed by the learned AO for all 3 years are dismissed

ITA 6094/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Hauthang, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

44B read with section 115A of The Income Tax Act 1961. 9. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the coordinate bench preferred the appeal before the honourable Delhi High Court wherein the following substantial question of law were referred ;- „ (i) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the tribunal justified in law in holding

KREUZ CHALLENGER PTE LTD,SINGAPURE vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2373/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 2, Venture Drive, International Taxation #24-01 Vision Exchange, Circle 2(1)(2), Singapore , 999999 New Delhi. Pan : Aahck3082A

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms C. Chandra Kanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 197Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

TDS amounting to INR 3 1,33,23,843 as claimed in the return of income filed for the relevant AY. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in erroneously levying Interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act. 8 On the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, GURGAON vs. SH. CHANCHAL SINGH DHEK, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5945/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Dcit Vs. Sh. Chanchal Singh Dhek Circle -1 (1) Prop. M/S. Great Roadways Gurgaon Anaj Mandi Chowk, Gurgaon Pan No. Aaopd6087G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 154Section 194C(3)Section 40Section 44B

44B. Subsequently the AO found that assessee has debited lorry hire charges to the extent of Rs.1,66,43,122/-on which no TDS was deducted by the assessee. He, therefore, issued a notice u/s. 154 of the IT Act. Since there was no compliance from the side of the assessee, the AO following the provisions of section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DEWSOFT OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3945/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-3945/Del/2010 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 14ASection 194JSection 40Section 44B

44B of the Income Tax Act 1961 was furnished by the assessee, CO.NO. 332/DEL/10 during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee debited a sum of Rs.19,69,195/- in the profit and loss account under the head legal and professional charges. The assessee vide letter dated 5/10/2009 submitted a list of persons to whom such payments were made

HALLIN MARINE UK LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5217/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun C/O Nangia & Company, Suite 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi (Pan: Aabch9433L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 92

44B in Finance Bill, 1987; & C.O. No. 463/Del/2012, AY-2009-10 Hallin Marine UK Ltd. (25) McDermott International Inc. vs. Addl. CIT & Anr. (2003) 180 CTR (Uttaranchal) 492 : (2003) 259 ITR 138 (Uttaranchal); (26) CIT vs. F.Y. Khambaty (1986) 50 CTR (Bom) 275 : (1986) 159 ITR 203 (Bom); (27) Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. vs. Director

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIN MARINE UK LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5290/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun C/O Nangia & Company, Suite 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi (Pan: Aabch9433L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 92

44B in Finance Bill, 1987; & C.O. No. 463/Del/2012, AY-2009-10 Hallin Marine UK Ltd. (25) McDermott International Inc. vs. Addl. CIT & Anr. (2003) 180 CTR (Uttaranchal) 492 : (2003) 259 ITR 138 (Uttaranchal); (26) CIT vs. F.Y. Khambaty (1986) 50 CTR (Bom) 275 : (1986) 159 ITR 203 (Bom); (27) Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. vs. Director

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

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. 50. The assessing

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

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. 50. The assessing

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

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. 50. The assessing

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

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. 50. The assessing

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

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. 50. The assessing

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

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. 50. The assessing