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.

23 results for “TDS”+ Section 144Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai213Delhi121Pune92Hyderabad64Bangalore64Chennai64Ahmedabad54Chandigarh46Jaipur37Visakhapatnam33Rajkot26Kolkata23Patna15Raipur12Surat12Lucknow12Agra9Indore9Cochin7Cuttack7Amritsar7Nagpur4Ranchi3Dehradun2Guwahati2Jodhpur1Panaji1Calcutta1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)25TDS19Section 14717Section 14816Addition to Income16Section 144B14Section 25011Section 14A11Section 143(1)8Section 148A

M/S. BATA INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DDIT, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1073/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 115PSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 250

TDS was granted by the CPC, which was sent by mail to the assessee on 25/05/2023; the validity of the intimation served by the DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru on 25.05.2023 and bearing the date 29.12.2021 is claimed to be barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. The other grounds relating to section 115P of the Act was also raised

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

8
Disallowance6
Deduction5

TARUN KUMAR PAUL,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2751/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 80CSection 80T

TDS statements has been assessed, but the credit has not been allowed, and the assessee contends that its actual taxable income is ₹22,40,059/- after allowing for deduction under section 80C amounting to ₹1,50,000/- and under section 80TTA amounting to ₹5,039/-, therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside

QUEST ONLINE ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-49(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/KOL/2023[2020-21`]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1046/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Quest Online…………………………………...............................……….……Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Room No.24, 1, Chandni Chowk Street, Princep Street, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan:Aaafq4820G] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1),Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2020-21Against The Order Dated 08.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeals Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition By Cit(A) Of Rs.14,82,41,932/- As Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 09.01.2021 Declaring Total Income From Business & Profession At Rs.36,73,790/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices Were Duly Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Various Documents & Evidences Were Called For By The Assessing Officer From The Assessee

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 144B(xii)(b). However, no such notice was ever given to the assessee nor was there any whisper of the report of verification unit. Therefore, the assessee was denied the opportunity of cross-examination of any of the persons who gave statements against the assessee. It was also contended before us that no notice

MSTC LTD,KOLKATA vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR-1(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Prasun Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, dated 26.12.2022. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1 For that without prejudice to any other ground taken, the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department hereinafter referred

RAM AZAD PAL,DURGAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DURGAPUR

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

ITA 2300/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am Income Tax Officer, Ram Azad Pal Ward 2(4), Ranchi Colony, Benachity, Aaykar Bhavan, City Centre, Faridpur, Durgapur, Pin-713213, Vs. Durgapur, Pin-713216, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aoypp0987E Assessee By : Shri Vishal Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nicholas Murmu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194Section 194CSection 69

section 144B of the Act on 15.03.2023 after making following three additions: (1) Unexplained investment of Rs.9,56,627/- u/s 69 of the Act on the ground that on the basis of monthly average of turnover for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2013-14 the additional operating capital required was Rs.9,56,627/-. (ii) Business income

ARPIT SEN,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1331/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: the completion of the Ld. AO as well as by the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, despite backed by all corroborative and supported evidences, is unlawful, unwarranted and against natural justice. Your appellant prays that such an unwarranted refusal of tax credit may please be directed to be deleted. [Relief claimed Allowance of Credit of Taxes paid amounting to Rs.21,88,820.24/-].

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69C

144B of the Act. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.1331/Kol/2024 Arpit Sen “1. That the Order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act is unlawful, unwarranted and against natural justice. 2. That the addition of Rs.2,35,44,107/- to the declared Taxable Income

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF TATA COFFEE LTD.),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2636/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 438Section 43BSection 80MSection 928Section 92B

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act') dated 29 October 2024 passed by the Assessment unit, Income Tax Department ('Ld. AO) and the directions under section 144C(5) of the Act dated 24 September 2024 passed by the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) are erroneous and bad in law. 2.0 On the facts and circumstances of the case

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

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

ITA 1711/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 274Section 40Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

144B of the Act on 08.09.2022, wherein total income was determined at Rs. 1,61,28,130/- after making additions/disallowance of (i) sum of Rs. 5,41,897/- disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards payments made without deducting I.T.A. No.: 1711/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited. TDS

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2673/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Abc India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 40/8, Ballygunj, Circular Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Square, Kolkata-700069 Vs. West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Pransukhka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, DR
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14A

144B of the Act vide order dated 27.03.2024, by determining the total income at ₹5,88,79,047/-. 3.2. In the appellate proceedings also the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the ld. AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 3.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that particularly

JAYA CHANDRA,BAGUIHATI vs. ITO, WARD 43(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2340/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Jaya Chandra Bg-16, Krishnapur Hanapara, Ito, Ward 43(1), Krishnapur, S.O. Baguiati, North 3 Government Place, East, Vs. 24 Paraganas, Kolkata-700102, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acnpc7347P Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Pransukhka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 145(3)

TDS 2, is higher than the receipts shown in the ITR, and iii) high liability as compared to low income/ receipt in ITR. The statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued which were replied by the assessee by furnishing the details and evidences as called for by the ld. Assessing Officer. The assessee is a sole distributor of ADMA India

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI vs. VAISHNODEVI BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, SILIGURI

In the result, both the appeals of the of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1383/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148ASection 68

TDS deducted at sources and payment thereof. However, the ld. AO noted that the assessee has failed to provide the satisfactory explanation/ submission/ evidences to explain the said loan from M/s Shivaangan Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. and accordingly treated the same as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee in the assessments framed u/s 147 read with

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI vs. VAISHNODEVI BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, SILIGURI

In the result, both the appeals of the of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1382/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148ASection 68

TDS deducted at sources and payment thereof. However, the ld. AO noted that the assessee has failed to provide the satisfactory explanation/ submission/ evidences to explain the said loan from M/s Shivaangan Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. and accordingly treated the same as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee in the assessments framed u/s 147 read with

ALLIANCE MEDICAL EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee isdismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1725/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 244A

section 144B of the Act. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. (a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in directing the A.O. to verify whether the sum of Rs. 79,47,200/- relating to commission received has been offered to tax during A.Y.: 2020-2021. (b) For that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GANGTOK vs. BHUMIKA RAI , NAMCHI, SIKKIM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1581/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 147Section 250Section 69Section 69A

TDS was deducted was also added to the income of the assessee in absence of any reply to the notice issued and the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was made at the total income of Rs. 9,19,53,065/-. However, the assessee’s claim of exemption under section

ISLANDER HOUSING PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,TEYLARABAD, PORT BLAIR, SOUTH ANDAMAN vs. ITO, WARD 3(4), PORT BLAIR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, VIP ROAD, PORT BLAIR.

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

ITA 2237/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company and has not filed return of income for the A.Y. 2020-21. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee deposited cash in the current bank account maintained with SBI amounting

GURUPADA HALDER,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 24(4), HOOGHLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2532/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 2532 & 2533/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Gurupada Halder,…………………………………Appellant Bramhan Para, Gopinagar, P.O. Gopinagar, Bardhaman, Hooghly-712402, West Bengal [Pan:Aejpg4363D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-24(4), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road, Khadina More, P.O. Chinsurah, Hooghly-712101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Arvind Agrawal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 147Section 148Section 44A

TDS has been deducted therefore, he was under impression that return need not to file. The notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2021 to the Appellant and in response to the notice the return was fled on 11.03.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 18,71,810/- (A.Y. 2016- 17) and Rs.15,69,650/- (for A.Y. 2017-18). Further

GURUPADA HALDER ,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 24(4), HOOGHLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2533/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 2532 & 2533/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Gurupada Halder,…………………………………Appellant Bramhan Para, Gopinagar, P.O. Gopinagar, Bardhaman, Hooghly-712402, West Bengal [Pan:Aejpg4363D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-24(4), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road, Khadina More, P.O. Chinsurah, Hooghly-712101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Arvind Agrawal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 147Section 148Section 44A

TDS has been deducted therefore, he was under impression that return need not to file. The notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2021 to the Appellant and in response to the notice the return was fled on 11.03.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 18,71,810/- (A.Y. 2016- 17) and Rs.15,69,650/- (for A.Y. 2017-18). Further

EIH LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 181/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.02.2022, through which the following additions (as are relevant for this adjudication) were made: I.T.A. Nos.181 & 498/Kol/2022 EIH Limited (i) TP Adjustment on account of Corporate Guarantee (hereafter CG) of Rs. 63,57,591/-. (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 498/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 28.02.2022, through which the following additions (as are relevant for this adjudication) were made: I.T.A. Nos.181 & 498/Kol/2022 EIH Limited (i) TP Adjustment on account of Corporate Guarantee (hereafter CG) of Rs. 63,57,591/-. (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 458/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), after the Ld. Dispute Mecleod Russel India Ltd. Resolution Panel (hereafter “the Ld. DRP”) orders dated 24.06.2022 in both the cases. The assessee is aggrieved with the impugned orders and has raised the following grounds of appeal as under: “1. The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred on facts