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.

1,614 results for “TDS”+ Section 48clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,614Mumbai1,588Bangalore793Chennai517Kolkata401Ahmedabad259Hyderabad220Cochin191Indore176Jaipur158Karnataka153Chandigarh151Raipur109Pune73Visakhapatnam62Surat61Nagpur56Cuttack44Lucknow42Rajkot41Ranchi36Jabalpur27Agra27Allahabad25Dehradun21Jodhpur19Amritsar16Telangana15Patna15Guwahati11Varanasi9Panaji9SC8Calcutta6Kerala5Uttarakhand2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)57Addition to Income37Section 10A33Disallowance31Section 4028Section 92C18TDS18Section 14714Section 14A14Deduction

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

TDS under Section 194-I of the Act. The Appellant replied to the SCN on 29th October 2001. On 31st October 2001, a penalty order was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271-C of the Act, imposing a penalty of Rs. 48

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 1,614 · Page 1 of 81

...
12
Section 13211
Section 143(2)11
ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
15 Apr 2026
AY 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

48,090 = Rs. 11,71,623. This methodology is defensible and is used by most AOs. It reflects the proportionate relationship between the TDS shortfall and the gross payment. However, there is an alternative line of reasoning: 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 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

48,090 = Rs. 11,71,623. This methodology is defensible and is used by most AOs. It reflects the proportionate relationship between the TDS shortfall and the gross payment. However, there is an alternative line of reasoning: 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

48,090 = Rs. 11,71,623. This methodology is defensible and is used by most AOs. It reflects the proportionate relationship between the TDS shortfall and the gross payment. However, there is an alternative line of reasoning: under section

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

TDS under section 192 of the Act, hence, cannot be treated as FTS under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12 of the tax treaty. Accordingly, there was no obligation on the part of the Assessee to withhold tax at source under section 195 of the Act. Resultantly, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer

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

Section 194J of the Act is not applicable in the present case. He further draw our attention towards page no. 47 of the PB which is a copy of notice of proposal for revision u/s. 263 of the Act issued by the Ld. CIT(TDS) dated 23.3.2012 and further draw our attention towards the page no. 48

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

Section 194J of the Act is not applicable in the present case. He further draw our attention towards page no. 47 of the PB which is a copy of notice of proposal for revision u/s. 263 of the Act issued by the Ld. CIT(TDS) dated 23.3.2012 and further draw our attention towards the page no. 48

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

Section 194J of the Act is not applicable in the present case. He further draw our attention towards page no. 47 of the PB which is a copy of notice of proposal for revision u/s. 263 of the Act issued by the Ld. CIT(TDS) dated 23.3.2012 and further draw our attention towards the page no. 48

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

Section 194J of the Act is not applicable in the present case. He further draw our attention towards page no. 47 of the PB which is a copy of notice of proposal for revision u/s. 263 of the Act issued by the Ld. CIT(TDS) dated 23.3.2012 and further draw our attention towards the page no. 48

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

Section 194J of the Act is not applicable in the present case. He further draw our attention towards page no. 47 of the PB which is a copy of notice of proposal for revision u/s. 263 of the Act issued by the Ld. CIT(TDS) dated 23.3.2012 and further draw our attention towards the page no. 48

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

Section 194J of the Act is not applicable in the present case. He further draw our attention towards page no. 47 of the PB which is a copy of notice of proposal for revision u/s. 263 of the Act issued by the Ld. CIT(TDS) dated 23.3.2012 and further draw our attention towards the page no. 48

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1881/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 5

48,500/-. The Ld. AR submitted with respect that the learned Assessing Officer be directed to grant full credit of TDS along with interest under section

SH. JATINDER SINGH TANEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 4885/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 48

section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which are Bank charges, Brokerage paid, Depreciation, Interest on loan, Interest on TDS

VARDHMAN INFRA DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-78(3), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 511/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.511/Del./2024, A.Y. 2014-15 Vardhman Infra Developers Income Tax Officer, (P) Ltd., 401-414, C-58, Ward-78(3), 4Th Floor, Shahpuri, Vs. Income Tax Office, Tirath Singh, Tower Dda, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Janakpuri, New Delhi Pan: Aadcv3838M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2014-15 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 201Section 203Section 272A(2)(g)Section 273Section 276BSection 279(2)

section 276B of the Act was compounded by the CCIT-TDS vide order dated 14.09.2015. The assessee placed reliance on following decisions: - “1. Executive Engineer vs. CIT(1994) 48

M/S. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6282/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

TDS? 4. Whether on the facts & that circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 51800000 on account of disallowance of warranty provisions?” 3.0.0 Arguing for the appeal filed by the assessee, the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that ground nos. 1 to 1.3 are relating to disallowance under Section 14A of the Income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6302/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

TDS? 4. Whether on the facts & that circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 51800000 on account of disallowance of warranty provisions?” 3.0.0 Arguing for the appeal filed by the assessee, the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that ground nos. 1 to 1.3 are relating to disallowance under Section 14A of the Income

YOGESH PATEL,USA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INT TAXATION 2(2)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with consequences to follow as directed above

ITA 2065/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Yogesh Patel, Vs Dcit, 37319, Fowler Street New Ark Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), California, New Delhi. Usa 94560. Pan: Arppp4747H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.06.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao), For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Applicant Is Non-Resident Indian Settled In Usa & Is Us Tax Resident. During The Previous Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Reference, The Applicant Sold Ancestral Land Bearing S No14 Hissa, No 7 Pt, Village Goregaon, Tal Borivli, Mumbai Suburban Dist On December 11, 2019 & Disclosed Long Term Capital Gains Computed As Under:- Amt In Rs Sale Consideration - 18,56,87,500 Less: Deduction U/S 48 - 13,56,87,500 Net Sale Consideration (I) 5,00,00,000 Acquisition Cost Fair Market Value On 01-04-2001 Rs 10,400/- X 3647.80 Sq M 3,79,37,120 Less: 60% Reduction In Fmv Due To Encroachment 2,27,62,272 1,51,74,848 Indexed Cost 1,51,74,848 X [289/100] 4,38,55,311 Cost Of Acquisition (Ii) 4,38,55,311 Long Term Capital Gains: (I) - (Ii) 61,44,689

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

Section 48 of the Act. In this context the sale deed recitals are most vital and as we examine the copy of sale deed made available at Page no. 63 to 90 of the appeal set we find that this sale deed has been executed between four parties. First is assessee along with co- owners, who are referred as ‘vendors

AYESA INGENIERIA Y ARQUITECTURA S.A.,NOIDA vs. ACIT INTL. TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sarin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 195Section 201Section 40Section 7(3)

48,160/- under normal provisions of the Act and income of Rs. 3,97,93,333/- and Rs. 4,51,21,310/- under section 115JB of the Act respectively. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notice(s) were issued and served upon the assessee. During the scrutiny proceedings from the perusal of Form

AYESA INGENIERIA Y ARQUITECTURA S.A.,NOIDA vs. ACIT INTL. TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2174/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sarin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 195Section 201Section 40Section 7(3)

48,160/- under normal provisions of the Act and income of Rs. 3,97,93,333/- and Rs. 4,51,21,310/- under section 115JB of the Act respectively. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notice(s) were issued and served upon the assessee. During the scrutiny proceedings from the perusal of Form

INTERNATIONAL GREEN SCAPES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 74(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the above observations

ITA 2047/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16] International Green Scapes Dcit, Ltd. B-16, Circle-74(1), Room No. 411, South Extn., Part-1, Vs 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi-110024. Distt. Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. Pan- Aaaci0600F Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Sandeep Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr [Assessment Year: 2015-16] International Green Scapes Cit(Tds), Ltd., B-16, Delhi-1, Room No. 610, 6Th South Extn., Part-1, Vs Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi-110024. Distt. Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.. Pan- Aaaci0600F Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Sandeep Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025

Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 263

TDS), u/s 263 of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under: - ITA No.- 2047/Del/2024 “1. The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income tax is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. ITA Nos.- 2046 & 2047/Del/2024 Interna"onal Green Scapes Ltd. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding