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.

1,605 results for “TDS”+ Section 47clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,605 Mumbai1,569 Bangalore922 Chennai585 Kolkata322 Ahmedabad207 Hyderabad204 Indore175 Raipur170 Cochin169 Karnataka167 Chandigarh156 Jaipur143 Pune113 Visakhapatnam77 Surat57 Lucknow48 Rajkot46 Cuttack39 Nagpur37 Ranchi35 Agra24 Guwahati24 Patna24 Jodhpur23 Allahabad14 Amritsar14 Telangana12 SC10 Dehradun7 Varanasi6 Panaji6 Kerala5 Jabalpur4 Uttarakhand3 Calcutta2 Rajasthan1 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income63 Section 143(3)43 Disallowance37 Section 4036 Deduction29 TDS22 Section 133(6)19 Section 271(1)(c)17 Section 115J15 Section 153A

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 Mr. Arjun Punjj 47,91,500 TDS deducted under section 194J Professional fees The tax auditor in its tax audit

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: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 1,605 · Page 1 of 81

...

14

Double Taxation/DTAA14

ITAT Delhi

15 Apr 2026

AY 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 Mr. Arjun Punjj 47,91,500 TDS deducted under section 194J Professional fees The tax auditor in its tax audit

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 Mr. Arjun Punjj 47,91,500 TDS deducted under section 194J Professional fees The tax auditor in its tax audit

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

47,90,424/- in place of Rs. 51,52,857/- which was made by the TPO vide its order dated 16.01.2015, and also (ii) made the addition of Rs. 2,99,20,449/- on account of disallowance under section 40a(i) of the Act, for non- deduction of TDS

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), Karnal and relied upon the order of the AO and stated that Section 194J of the Act is not applicable in the present case. He further draw our attention towards page no. 47

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), Karnal and relied upon the order of the AO and stated that Section 194J of the Act is not applicable in the present case. He further draw our attention towards page no. 47

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), Karnal and relied upon the order of the AO and stated that Section 194J of the Act is not applicable in the present case. He further draw our attention towards page no. 47

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), Karnal and relied upon the order of the AO and stated that Section 194J of the Act is not applicable in the present case. He further draw our attention towards page no. 47

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), Karnal and relied upon the order of the AO and stated that Section 194J of the Act is not applicable in the present case. He further draw our attention towards page no. 47

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), Karnal and relied upon the order of the AO and stated that Section 194J of the Act is not applicable in the present case. He further draw our attention towards page no. 47

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 54

47) of the Act and therefore conditions for claiming deduction u/s 54 got satisfied. Further, the Assessee also subsequently obtained possession of the constructed flat from the developer on 08/12/2021, which too is within the prescribed timelines of section 54. In view of the above facts, circumstances and the legal position, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted such disallowance made

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2366/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR

47,65,561 Taxpayer Operating Profit 5,81,17,179 Arm's Length OP/ OR 4.83% Arm’s Length profit 5,80,99,236 Diff. between the ALP and -17,943 reported margin international transaction 342570563 Proportionate Adjustment (5,369) 5% of international 1,71,28,528 1 transatransactions * the above calculation does not include M/s. Delhi Duty Free Services

ACIT, CC- 31, NEW DELHI vs. PERNOD RICHARD INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1607/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR

47,65,561 Taxpayer Operating Profit 5,81,17,179 Arm's Length OP/ OR 4.83% Arm’s Length profit 5,80,99,236 Diff. between the ALP and -17,943 reported margin international transaction 342570563 Proportionate Adjustment (5,369) 5% of international 1,71,28,528 1 transatransactions * the above calculation does not include M/s. Delhi Duty Free Services

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 31, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1365/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR

47,65,561 Taxpayer Operating Profit 5,81,17,179 Arm's Length OP/ OR 4.83% Arm’s Length profit 5,80,99,236 Diff. between the ALP and -17,943 reported margin international transaction 342570563 Proportionate Adjustment (5,369) 5% of international 1,71,28,528 1 transatransactions * the above calculation does not include M/s. Delhi Duty Free Services

DCIT, CC-31, NEW DELHI vs. PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2601/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR

47,65,561 Taxpayer Operating Profit 5,81,17,179 Arm's Length OP/ OR 4.83% Arm’s Length profit 5,80,99,236 Diff. between the ALP and -17,943 reported margin international transaction 342570563 Proportionate Adjustment (5,369) 5% of international 1,71,28,528 1 transatransactions * the above calculation does not include M/s. Delhi Duty Free Services

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTI INFRATEL LTD AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF ERSTWHILE INDUS TOWER LTD) ,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

47(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly, the transaction question would not be regarded as transfer for the purposes of section 45, which is the charging section for capital gains. I have also considered the alternate submission of the appellant with regard to the failure of computation mechanism provided in case of depreciable assets as under section

ACIT , CIRCLE 10, NEW DELHI vs. INDUS TOWER LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

47(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly, the transaction question would not be regarded as transfer for the purposes of section 45, which is the charging section for capital gains. I have also considered the alternate submission of the appellant with regard to the failure of computation mechanism provided in case of depreciable assets as under section

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1962/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

47(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly, the transaction question would not be regarded as transfer for the purposes of section 45, which is the charging section for capital gains. I have also considered the alternate submission of the appellant with regard to the failure of computation mechanism provided in case of depreciable assets as under section

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

47,894/- being notional loss booked under the head foreign exchange loss; disallowance of Rs. 56,97,665/- for non- deduction of TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section

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

47,894/- being notional loss booked under the head foreign exchange loss; disallowance of Rs. 56,97,665/- for non- deduction of TDS; disallowance of Rs. 1,16,97,590/- under section