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.

127 results for “TDS”+ Section 132(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai901Delhi754Bangalore481Hyderabad282Chennai184Jaipur129Kolkata127Chandigarh122Karnataka107Ahmedabad95Raipur94Cochin85Surat46Indore45Visakhapatnam40Pune38Nagpur34Lucknow25Agra21Rajkot21Guwahati18Patna17Allahabad12Jodhpur11Amritsar11Cuttack7Dehradun6Kerala5Panaji5SC4Ranchi3Varanasi2Gauhati1Calcutta1Rajasthan1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 153A87Section 143(3)84Addition to Income54Section 6843Section 139(1)39Section 13235Section 115J32Deduction31TDS29Disallowance

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 357/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

132,70,62,114.00 @ 100%. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to seek clarification as to why the deduction should not be allowed @ 30% as discussed above. In compliance thereto the assessee submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication services after 1st day of April

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 127 · Page 1 of 7

29
Section 26328
Section 14725
ITA 343/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

132,70,62,114.00 @ 100%. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to seek clarification as to why the deduction should not be allowed @ 30% as discussed above. In compliance thereto the assessee submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication services after 1st day of April

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 356/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

132,70,62,114.00 @ 100%. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to seek clarification as to why the deduction should not be allowed @ 30% as discussed above. In compliance thereto the assessee submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication services after 1st day of April

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 377/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

132,70,62,114.00 @ 100%. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to seek clarification as to why the deduction should not be allowed @ 30% as discussed above. In compliance thereto the assessee submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication services after 1st day of April

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 482/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

132,70,62,114.00 @ 100%. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to seek clarification as to why the deduction should not be allowed @ 30% as discussed above. In compliance thereto the assessee submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication services after 1st day of April

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 485/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

132,70,62,114.00 @ 100%. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to seek clarification as to why the deduction should not be allowed @ 30% as discussed above. In compliance thereto the assessee submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication services after 1st day of April

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 673/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

132,70,62,114.00 @ 100%. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to seek clarification as to why the deduction should not be allowed @ 30% as discussed above. In compliance thereto the assessee submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication services after 1st day of April

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 431/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

132,70,62,114.00 @ 100%. Accordingly the AO called upon the assessee to seek clarification as to why the deduction should not be allowed @ 30% as discussed above. In compliance thereto the assessee submitted that the amended provisions of section 80IA of the Act provides that the profits of an undertaking providing telecommunication services after 1st day of April

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

ITA 1494/KOL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that to claim immunity under Clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271 of the Act the assessee had to satisfy the following three conditions : (i) Such income has been disclosed in a statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009&1494 to 1497Kol/2010-Amar Nath

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

ITA 1797/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) was of the view that to claim immunity under Clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271 of the Act the assessee had to satisfy the following three conditions : (i) Such income has been disclosed in a statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009&1494 to 1497Kol/2010-Amar Nath

INDIAN WIRE AND STEEL PRODUCTS ,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allow

ITA 1160/KOL/2019[2010-1]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Indian Wire & Steel Products.....…………........................................................……………….…......Appellant 2Nd Floor 113A, Manohar Das Katra Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aaafi 7079 M] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-44, Kolkata………………………………….…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 10Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132(1)Section 147Section 250

132(1) of the income Tax, 1961 was carried out in the case of Anand Kumar Sharma, well known entry operators and his other related entities on Kumar Sharma, well known entry operators and his other related entities on Kumar Sharma, well known entry operators and his other related entities on 02.07.2013. In the statement, Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha

EIH LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOL - III,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the order passed by the Learned CIT u/s 263 of the Act is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: G. Mallikarjun, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 38Section 38(2)

TDS provisions in terms of section 194J read with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act) was never considered and decided by the Learned CITA in original appellate proceedings. Now coming to the facts of the instant case before us, the aspect of depreciation on aircrafts was never examined / decided by the Learned CITA. Hence the arguments of the Learned

ARSH IRON & STEEL LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 206/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

TDs was deducted, therefore, the total disallowance of Rs.1,50,98,433/- is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.” 6. Ld. AR for the assessee filed paper book which is running pages from 1 to 169 and submitted that turnover of the assessee in the last year was at ITA No.206-207/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Arsh Iron & Steel

DCIT, CC-2(3), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. MAXCAB INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2590/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Maxcab Industries Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, 110 Shantipally, 67/C, Balaram Dey Street, E.M. Bypass, Vs. West Bengal-700006 West Bengal-700107 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aancm1997Q Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Ms. Nandini Surekh, Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 68

132(1) of the Act aswell as survey under section 133A of the Act, 1961 on 15.03.2022 and subsequent dates, at the office premises of "Goel Group of cases' at "Unit No. 12/4, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107 and other places as well as at the residential premises of its Directors namely, Devendra Goel, Devash Goel, Purushottam Dass Goel

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., ,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE - 4, DURGAPUR , DURGAPUR

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

ITA 1482/KOL/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

1)/201(1A) refundable etc for failure to TDS amount deduct tax and without for failure to adjusting deposit tax even applicable on deduction) interest. 3. On the basis of the above re-casted statement, the Assessing Officer found that there was a short-fall in deposits of TDS by the assessee for assessment years

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., ,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE - 4, DURGAPUR , DURGAPUR

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

ITA 1481/KOL/2018[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

1)/201(1A) refundable etc for failure to TDS amount deduct tax and without for failure to adjusting deposit tax even applicable on deduction) interest. 3. On the basis of the above re-casted statement, the Assessing Officer found that there was a short-fall in deposits of TDS by the assessee for assessment years

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., ,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT (TDS), CIRCLE - 4, DURGAPUR , DURGAPUR

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

ITA 1483/KOL/2018[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

1)/201(1A) refundable etc for failure to TDS amount deduct tax and without for failure to adjusting deposit tax even applicable on deduction) interest. 3. On the basis of the above re-casted statement, the Assessing Officer found that there was a short-fall in deposits of TDS by the assessee for assessment years

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI GOPAL KUMAR NAREDI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2062/KOL/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. (Shri) Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271Section 271A

Section 271AAB it is clearly written that TAX AND INTEREST has to be deposited before the filing of return. As per the computation filed by the assessee, it is seen that after allowing credit of TDS, the assess vas required to deposit Rs. 1,24,35,550/- and statutory interest on such taxes but before filing return the assessee could

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-11(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1157/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1157/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaacs1425L) Vs. Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata ……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Sm. Lata Goyal, Aca Appeared For Appellant Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.04.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.09.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S. 154 R,W,S, 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Dated 12.07.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), [Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Cit(A)] Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred In Not Granting The Interest U/S. 244A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act').

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)Section 250

TDS was less than 10% of the total tax liability. Thereafter, on 06.06.2022, assessee moved a rectification application and one of the point of its application was that the assessee is entitled to substantial MAT credit brought forward from earlier years. The details of such MAT credit of Rs.33,08,57,877/- is mentioned below: 9. On going through

THE SATURDAY CLUB LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 2377/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

TDS. ” The Department did not file appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT (A) against the finding that rental income of Rs.2,49,583/- was exempt from taxation in the case of the assessee on principle of mutuality following judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bankipur Club (supra). Therefore, impliedly the Department accepted the decision