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.

1,183 results for “TDS”+ Section 89clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,183Mumbai1,119Bangalore497Chennai427Kolkata205Indore152Hyderabad148Ahmedabad141Chandigarh135Karnataka127Jaipur124Cochin74Raipur51Pune51Lucknow35Visakhapatnam28Nagpur27Rajkot25Ranchi24Surat21Kerala18Guwahati18Cuttack15Agra14Jodhpur12Amritsar11Telangana10Dehradun8Jabalpur5Varanasi4Patna4Uttarakhand3Rajasthan3SC3Calcutta2Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income47Section 143(3)38Disallowance32Deduction31Double Taxation/DTAA22TDS19Section 44D18Section 26317Section 14A15Section 234E

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, which has not been made by the Assessee. The Ld. AO is accordingly directed to disallow the aforesaid expenditure under section 40a(i) of the Act. 9.3 Consequently, the ld. DRP directed the AO to complete the assessment as per the above directions and to incorporate the reasons given by the DRP iro various objections at the appropriate places

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Showing 1–20 of 1,183 · Page 1 of 60

...
15
Section 43B14
Section 4014
ITA 452/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

89,68,934/- pertaining to provision for onerous contracts which has already been disallowed by the appellant, for further verification with the assessing officer. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 577/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

89,68,934/- pertaining to provision for onerous contracts which has already been disallowed by the appellant, for further verification with the assessing officer. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section

SUMITA SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 577/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

89,68,934/- pertaining to provision for onerous contracts which has already been disallowed by the appellant, for further verification with the assessing officer. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section

R V INTERIOR PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 452/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

89,68,934/- pertaining to provision for onerous contracts which has already been disallowed by the appellant, for further verification with the assessing officer. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4050/DEL/2016[2015-16 (F.Y. 2014-15)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

TDS), (2016) 73 taxman.com 380 (Pune Trib.). The assessee has challenged the power of the officer to charge/collect fee as per the provision of section 234E, whether vested prior to substitution of clause (c) to section 200A of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01/06/2015 and enabling provision in section 200A for raising demand in respect of levy

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4051/DEL/2016[2014-15 (F.Y. 2013-14)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

TDS), (2016) 73 taxman.com 380 (Pune Trib.). The assessee has challenged the power of the officer to charge/collect fee as per the provision of section 234E, whether vested prior to substitution of clause (c) to section 200A of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01/06/2015 and enabling provision in section 200A for raising demand in respect of levy

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

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

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

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

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
Section 92C

89,99,662 8. Cost recharge from group 40,10,19,164 companies 2.1 He further noted that the assesseee has incurred the following AMP expenditure:- Manufacturing AMP/Sales Distribution AMP/Sales AMP for Brand 252,56,36,959 62,23,54,505 (Business Building Performance guarantee to be considered separately later) Sales 5817,27,62,394 120,28,82,740 AMP/Sales

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
Section 92C

89,99,662 8. Cost recharge from group 40,10,19,164 companies 2.1 He further noted that the assesseee has incurred the following AMP expenditure:- Manufacturing AMP/Sales Distribution AMP/Sales AMP for Brand 252,56,36,959 62,23,54,505 (Business Building Performance guarantee to be considered separately later) Sales 5817,27,62,394 120,28,82,740 AMP/Sales

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
Section 92C

89,99,662 8. Cost recharge from group 40,10,19,164 companies 2.1 He further noted that the assesseee has incurred the following AMP expenditure:- Manufacturing AMP/Sales Distribution AMP/Sales AMP for Brand 252,56,36,959 62,23,54,505 (Business Building Performance guarantee to be considered separately later) Sales 5817,27,62,394 120,28,82,740 AMP/Sales

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
Section 92C

89,99,662 8. Cost recharge from group 40,10,19,164 companies 2.1 He further noted that the assesseee has incurred the following AMP expenditure:- Manufacturing AMP/Sales Distribution AMP/Sales AMP for Brand 252,56,36,959 62,23,54,505 (Business Building Performance guarantee to be considered separately later) Sales 5817,27,62,394 120,28,82,740 AMP/Sales

ER AUTO PVT LTD,ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD - (TDS) , ROHTAK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9268/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(j)

89,938/- deducted by the NBFC Company under section 194H of the Income Tax Act. (ii) That the abovesaid demand has been confirmed rejecting the contention of the assessee that the payment made by the assessee is not in the nature of ‘commission or brokerage’ and therefore provisions of section 194H are not applicable on such payments. (iii) That

ER AUTO PVT LTD,ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD - (TDS) , ROHTAK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9270/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(j)

89,938/- deducted by the NBFC Company under section 194H of the Income Tax Act. (ii) That the abovesaid demand has been confirmed rejecting the contention of the assessee that the payment made by the assessee is not in the nature of ‘commission or brokerage’ and therefore provisions of section 194H are not applicable on such payments. (iii) That

ER AUTO PVT LTD,ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD - (TDS) , ROHTAK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9269/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(j)

89,938/- deducted by the NBFC Company under section 194H of the Income Tax Act. (ii) That the abovesaid demand has been confirmed rejecting the contention of the assessee that the payment made by the assessee is not in the nature of ‘commission or brokerage’ and therefore provisions of section 194H are not applicable on such payments. (iii) That

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

ITA 3378/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anupma Anand, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 133ASection 195Section 201(1)

89,050/- 32,28,441/- 2014-15 1,61,42,203/- 3,222/- 2015-16 19,99,843/ 3,99,969/- 16,110/- 13,000/- 2016-17 7,76,150/- 1,55,230/- 65,000/- 2,31,81,507/- 46,36,302/- 81,110/- 16,222/- 30,000/- 6,002/- 1,88,28 37,656/- Total TDS

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

ITA 3382/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anupma Anand, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 133ASection 195Section 201(1)

89,050/- 32,28,441/- 2014-15 1,61,42,203/- 3,222/- 2015-16 19,99,843/ 3,99,969/- 16,110/- 13,000/- 2016-17 7,76,150/- 1,55,230/- 65,000/- 2,31,81,507/- 46,36,302/- 81,110/- 16,222/- 30,000/- 6,002/- 1,88,28 37,656/- Total TDS