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.

26 results for “TDS”+ Permanent Establishmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,021Mumbai794Chennai353Bangalore282Kolkata146Karnataka120Ahmedabad98Jaipur45Chandigarh31Raipur30Hyderabad26Indore26Visakhapatnam19Dehradun19Rajkot17Lucknow13Pune12Nagpur8Cochin8Guwahati7Cuttack7Panaji6Amritsar6SC5Telangana5Jodhpur5Agra4Varanasi4Jabalpur3Surat3Uttarakhand2Patna1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)21TDS15Section 4014Addition to Income14Double Taxation/DTAA13Section 19512Section 234B10Disallowance10Section 133A9Permanent Establishment

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. TRIDENT CHEMPHAR LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 433/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Trident Chemphar Ltd. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaeft8416H. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2023

For Appellant: Shri B.G. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar – CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 195Section 40

Permanent Establishment" within the meaning of clause 2(i) of Article 5 of "Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation and Prevention of Fiscal Evasion" between India and UAE. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the provisions of Section 195 are not applicable

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

9
Deduction8
Section 1486

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. GAIAN SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 569/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Sri SVD Vijay Bhaskar, AdvFor Respondent: Sri Srikanth S, D.R
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 69Section 69C

permanent establishment In India does not attracts TDS provisions u/ s 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further we would

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 228/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Electronics Corporation Of India Vs. Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Ecil Post, Moulali, Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace4809L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C.S. Subrahmanyam Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri C.S. SubrahmanyamFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai – CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 9Section 90(2)

permanent establishment in India, the business profits of USA resident were not taxable in India. Accordingly, no TDS u/s 195 was warranted

REASONING GLOBAL E-APPLICATIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2028/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Reasoning Global E- Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Application Ltd, Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aadcr6701P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Swapnil Deshmukh, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing It Enabled Electronic Commerce Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2012-13 On 30.09.2012 Declaring Loss Of Rs.9,52,71,232/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Debited An Amount Of Rs.1,02,18,116/- Towards Web Hosting Charges. From The Bills/Invoices Produced For The Expenditure So Claimed, The Page 1 Of 19

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Deshmukh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 9(1)(vi)

TDS provisions would be applicable under sec. 195(1), whether or not it has a permanent establishment or any business

CATTERPILLAR MINING EUROPE GMBH-INDIA PROJECT OFFICE, KARIMNAGAR,KARIMNAGAR vs. DCIT-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 483/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

Permanent Establishment is not confined to the services being rendered by the Project Office and has not 4 ITA Nos.610/Hyd/2014; 483/Hyd/2015; 2072/Hyd/2017; 1127/Hyd/2019 and 116/Hyd/2021. appreciated the fact that case of the Appellant was covered under Article 5(4)(e) of the Indo-German DTAA. 5. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,PEDDAPALLI vs. ASSISTANT OF INCOME TAX -1,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ,HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 116/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

Permanent Establishment is not confined to the services being rendered by the Project Office and has not 4 ITA Nos.610/Hyd/2014; 483/Hyd/2015; 2072/Hyd/2017; 1127/Hyd/2019 and 116/Hyd/2021. appreciated the fact that case of the Appellant was covered under Article 5(4)(e) of the Indo-German DTAA. 5. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,PEDDAPALLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1127/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

Permanent Establishment is not confined to the services being rendered by the Project Office and has not 4 ITA Nos.610/Hyd/2014; 483/Hyd/2015; 2072/Hyd/2017; 1127/Hyd/2019 and 116/Hyd/2021. appreciated the fact that case of the Appellant was covered under Article 5(4)(e) of the Indo-German DTAA. 5. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case

CSATERRPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,GODAVARIKHANI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2072/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

Permanent Establishment is not confined to the services being rendered by the Project Office and has not 4 ITA Nos.610/Hyd/2014; 483/Hyd/2015; 2072/Hyd/2017; 1127/Hyd/2019 and 116/Hyd/2021. appreciated the fact that case of the Appellant was covered under Article 5(4)(e) of the Indo-German DTAA. 5. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH-INDIA PROJECT OFFICE,KARIMNAGAR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION-1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 610/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

Permanent Establishment is not confined to the services being rendered by the Project Office and has not 4 ITA Nos.610/Hyd/2014; 483/Hyd/2015; 2072/Hyd/2017; 1127/Hyd/2019 and 116/Hyd/2021. appreciated the fact that case of the Appellant was covered under Article 5(4)(e) of the Indo-German DTAA. 5. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 332/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 195(2)Section 40

permanent establishment of the recipient in India, it cannot be taxed in India in terms of Article 5 read with Article 7 of India-Australia DTAA. (e) Erred in concluding that the business support services are rendered in India without any basis and purely on presumptions, surmises and conjectures. (f) Notwithstanding the above, the Ld. Authorities have erred

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SATYAM VENTURE ENGINEERING SERVICE PVT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1242/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1242/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dy. Cit Vs. Satyam Venture Central Circle 3(2) Engineering Service Hyderabad Private Limited Hyderabad Pan: Aafcs3287D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Ev Sri Krishna राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri T.V. Vamsidhar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/06/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A), Hyderabad -11 For The A.Y.2022-23. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: CA EV Sri KrishnaFor Respondent: : Shri T.V. Vamsidhar, Sr. AR
Section 40

TDS is required to be deducted on this payment as the said amount is not taxable in the hand of the recipient as per the provisions of DTAA between India and Thailand. It was also submitted that the DTAA between India and Thailand does not contain any article on fee for technical services and further the recipient also

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 975/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 195Section 234ASection 40Section 92C

Permanent Establishment [in short “PE”] in India. Therefore, it is necessary for us to examine the payment 16 ITA.No.975/Hyd./2024 made by the appellant-company to ADP-Australia for receiving business support services in terms of agreement between the parties and in light of provisions of sec.9(1)(vii) read with Tax Treaty between India and Australia. 12. Section

DCIT., (INTERNATION TAXATION)-2, HYDERABAD vs. VIRTUSA INTERNATIONAL B V, NETHERLAND

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

ITA 727/HYD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Nidhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234C

TDS has been made by the payee company without appreciating the fact that the interest u/s.234C is governed by the provisions of Sec.234C which speaks about charging of interest u/s.234C when the assessee has not paid the whole amount of tax payable in respect of the subject dividend income by the end of the financial year i.e 31.03.2023. ITA No.727/Hyd/2024

SHELADIA ASSOCIATES INC,SD ROAD vs. ADIT(INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 537/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 537/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sheladia Associates Inc, Adit (Int Taxn)-2, Secunderabad Vs. Hyderabad [Pan No. Aafcs7792F] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aluru V. Sai Sudha, ARFor Respondent: Ms. L. Sunitha Rao, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 37Section 44C

permanent establishment of a foreign company located in the USA. It is engaged in the business of engineering and engineering consultancy services. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2021-22 on 30/10/2020, by declaring a total income of Rs. 3,80,95,360/-. Learned Assessing Officer, by order dated 31/12/2022, proposed to make addition

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSPIRA MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAB

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1791/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Nspira Management Circle-16(1) Services Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr.Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

Permanent Establishment in India.” 2 ITA.No.1791/Hyd/2019 2. Before us, the Ld. DR for the Revenue had drawn our attention to paragraph 4 of the order passed by the AO, wherein the AO had mentioned that assessee had paid the reference charges of Rs.6,33,50,000/- to M/s. CX Partners Pte Limited and consultancy charges of Rs.1

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. BLEND COLOURS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1185/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Pan – Aaccb 2492 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 2492 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sidharth Toshnival Revenue By: Shri A. Sitarama Rao Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Shri A. Sitarama Rao
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

TDS and for many years they were claiming commission and in previous years no disallowances were made on commission expenses and the listed parties have provided names of all commission agents including previous years and completed particulars of agents, therefore, asked to call for information that has been sought from agents itself. 2.4 After considering the submissions of the assessee

BLEND COLOURS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1137/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Pan – Aaccb 2492 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 2492 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sidharth Toshnival Revenue By: Shri A. Sitarama Rao Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Shri A. Sitarama Rao
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

TDS and for many years they were claiming commission and in previous years no disallowances were made on commission expenses and the listed parties have provided names of all commission agents including previous years and completed particulars of agents, therefore, asked to call for information that has been sought from agents itself. 2.4 After considering the submissions of the assessee

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

ITA 1528/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 133ASection 200(3)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)

established. For the sake of completeness, the observations ITA No. 2410/PUN/2017 A.Y.2011-12 and findings of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the above referred case are as follows: "17. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. In this bunch of appeals, the issue which arises for adjudication is against the levy of penalty under section 272A

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

ITA 1529/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 133ASection 200(3)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)

established. For the sake of completeness, the observations ITA No. 2410/PUN/2017 A.Y.2011-12 and findings of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the above referred case are as follows: "17. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. In this bunch of appeals, the issue which arises for adjudication is against the levy of penalty under section 272A

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

ITA 1530/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 133ASection 200(3)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)

established. For the sake of completeness, the observations ITA No. 2410/PUN/2017 A.Y.2011-12 and findings of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the above referred case are as follows: "17. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. In this bunch of appeals, the issue which arises for adjudication is against the levy of penalty under section 272A