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.

22 results for “TDS”+ Section 273clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi290Mumbai253Patna150Bangalore115Karnataka107Chennai104Kolkata64Ahmedabad42Raipur40Chandigarh30Indore28Jaipur26Cochin23Hyderabad22Lucknow20Pune13Cuttack13Nagpur12Visakhapatnam11Rajkot7Kerala5Panaji5SC4Allahabad4Agra4Guwahati4Varanasi4Amritsar3Surat2Jodhpur2Orissa1Rajasthan1Telangana1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 244A24Section 201(1)21Section 15418TDS16Section 194J14Section 914Addition to Income13Deduction13Section 143(3)12Section 40

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1915/HYD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

273) (SC). This judgment arose under the Service Tax and Sales Tax wherein one of the questions which arose for consideration was whether there was any transfer of a right to use any goods by providing access or telephone connection by the telephone service provider to a subscriber. Referring to section 4 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which gives exclusive

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 1487
Survey u/s 133A7

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1913/HYD/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

273) (SC). This judgment arose under the Service Tax and Sales Tax wherein one of the questions which arose for consideration was whether there was any transfer of a right to use any goods by providing access or telephone connection by the telephone service provider to a subscriber. Referring to section 4 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which gives exclusive

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1914/HYD/2019[2005-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2005-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

273) (SC). This judgment arose under the Service Tax and Sales Tax wherein one of the questions which arose for consideration was whether there was any transfer of a right to use any goods by providing access or telephone connection by the telephone service provider to a subscriber. Referring to section 4 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which gives exclusive

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1916/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

273) (SC). This judgment arose under the Service Tax and Sales Tax wherein one of the questions which arose for consideration was whether there was any transfer of a right to use any goods by providing access or telephone connection by the telephone service provider to a subscriber. Referring to section 4 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which gives exclusive

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1917/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

273) (SC). This judgment arose under the Service Tax and Sales Tax wherein one of the questions which arose for consideration was whether there was any transfer of a right to use any goods by providing access or telephone connection by the telephone service provider to a subscriber. Referring to section 4 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which gives exclusive

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1918/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

273) (SC). This judgment arose under the Service Tax and Sales Tax wherein one of the questions which arose for consideration was whether there was any transfer of a right to use any goods by providing access or telephone connection by the telephone service provider to a subscriber. Referring to section 4 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which gives exclusive

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1919/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

273) (SC). This judgment arose under the Service Tax and Sales Tax wherein one of the questions which arose for consideration was whether there was any transfer of a right to use any goods by providing access or telephone connection by the telephone service provider to a subscriber. Referring to section 4 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which gives exclusive

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HILL COUNTY PROPERTIES LTD., (FORMERLY MAYTAS PROPERTIES LTD.), HYD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1001/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Hill County Properties Income Tax, Limited, Central Circle 3(2), (Formerly Maytas Properties Hyderabad. Limited) Maytas Hill County, Bachupally, Miyapur, Hyderabad. Pan Aaecm2732Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rojit Majumdar (D.R)For Respondent: Shri S. Rama Rao
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

273; 10% estimated expenditure disallowance of cash payment and prior period expenditure disallowance of Rs.9,10,000; respectively emerges that the CIT(Appeals) has followed the tribunal’s order in assessee's case in A.Y. 2008-09 restoring the very issues back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh necessary factual verification. We thus find no merit in the Revenue

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. ICOMM TELE LIMITED, HYERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1281/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri NarayanamurthyFor Respondent: Shri R. Dipak and Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244A

TDS only when reflected in 26AS. The updation of Form 26AS is beyond the control of the assessee and hence the delay in updation should not be attributed to the assessee. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow interest u/s 244A as was allowed in the earlier 154 order

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1040/HYD/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri NarayanamurthyFor Respondent: Shri R. Dipak and Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244A

TDS only when reflected in 26AS. The updation of Form 26AS is beyond the control of the assessee and hence the delay in updation should not be attributed to the assessee. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow interest u/s 244A as was allowed in the earlier 154 order

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1041/HYD/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Icomm Tele Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaeca 1326Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri NarayanamurthyFor Respondent: Shri R. Dipak and Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244A

TDS only when reflected in 26AS. The updation of Form 26AS is beyond the control of the assessee and hence the delay in updation should not be attributed to the assessee. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow interest u/s 244A as was allowed in the earlier 154 order

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1632/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115Section 115JSection 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

273) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that Minimum Alternative Taxes (MAT) under section 115]B of the Act is a self-contained code and the AO has no jurisdiction to alter the book profit except to the extent provided in the explanation to section 115JB of the Act; Disallowances of expenditures: ITA Nos.1613 & 1632/Hyd/2017 Page

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

section is very clear and the appellant has incurred the expenditure and the appellant has made the payment to the various parties and persons. The appellant has, to circumvent, not accounted for the same and has also not brought out any evidence from M/s.DLF that they have accounted for such transactions in their books as cash payments. The MoU cannot

ACHYUTHA ELECTRICALS AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 1189/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

273/- On verification, it was submitted by the appellant that this amount relates to earlier year advance payment and for which TDS has already been deducted. Hence, it is seen that the amounts have been paid to lt5 sob· contractor MI5. MCC Projects Pvt Ltd without proper deduction Taxes at source. Appellant has been claiming subcontract payments as expenditure

ACHYUTHA ELECTRICALS AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 1190/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

273/- On verification, it was submitted by the appellant that this amount relates to earlier year advance payment and for which TDS has already been deducted. Hence, it is seen that the amounts have been paid to lt5 sob· contractor MI5. MCC Projects Pvt Ltd without proper deduction Taxes at source. Appellant has been claiming subcontract payments as expenditure

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

TDS) reported in 196 Taxmann 445 has held as under: “The affidavit filed in support of the application for the condonation of delay disclosed that, after the order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there was a change of managing director. Though the chartered accountant of the company opined that it was a fit case for appeal and prepared

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

TDS) reported in 196 Taxmann 445 has held as under: “The affidavit filed in support of the application for the condonation of delay disclosed that, after the order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there was a change of managing director. Though the chartered accountant of the company opined that it was a fit case for appeal and prepared

KALBURGI CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 573/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri Kalyanasundaram, C.AFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 270ASection 92C

273/- is done to the total income of the taxpayer by benchmarking this transaction by taking CUP as MAM.” 6. The assessee had filed the petition before the DRP and the DRP (vide Para 2.4.6 to 2.4.14 of his order – Pages 013 to 015 of the Volume 1 of the paper book) had upheld the order of Assessing Officer

VENKATA SUDHAKAR SIMHADRI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 382/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.382/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Shri Venkata Sudhakar Dcit, Circle 2(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Simhadri, Hyderabad. Pan : Avnps0649D (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Y. V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 19/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri Y. V. Bhanu NarayanFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 69

273/- was declared as income for the A.Y. 2013-14 in the return of income filed in India on 13.01.2022. 6. On the 3 facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred by confirming the assessment made by the learned A.O. by erroneously invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Income

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)

section 115JB. Subsequently, the case was taken up for limited scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and duly served on the assessee. In responses to the notices, the AR of the assessee furnished the details. 2.1 During the scrutiny proceedings, on perusal of P & L Account, the AO noticed that under the head