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.

85 results for “TDS”+ Section 199(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai442Delhi428Bangalore213Chennai117Karnataka108Kolkata85Chandigarh83Hyderabad77Ahmedabad56Jaipur48Pune46Raipur42Lucknow33Jodhpur29Indore18Visakhapatnam15Cuttack10Surat9Rajkot6Telangana5Cochin4Amritsar4Rajasthan3Panaji2Allahabad2SC2Agra1Calcutta1Nagpur1Patna1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)90Section 4048Disallowance45Section 14A38TDS38Addition to Income37Deduction31Section 25021Section 143(1)20Section 263

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 117/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

199 Taxman 341 / 11 taxmann.com 100, provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not attracted in instant case Held, yes - Whether, therefore, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) was not justified - Held, yes. Punjab & Haryana High Court. CIT VS Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd [204 Taxman 82 (P & H HC11 Where assessee-company was not shareholder

Showing 1–20 of 85 · Page 1 of 5

20
Section 194C19
Section 145(3)13

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 118/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

199 Taxman 341 / 11 taxmann.com 100, provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not attracted in instant case Held, yes - Whether, therefore, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) was not justified - Held, yes. Punjab & Haryana High Court. CIT VS Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd [204 Taxman 82 (P & H HC11 Where assessee-company was not shareholder

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 119/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

199 Taxman 341 / 11 taxmann.com 100, provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not attracted in instant case Held, yes - Whether, therefore, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) was not justified - Held, yes. Punjab & Haryana High Court. CIT VS Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd [204 Taxman 82 (P & H HC11 Where assessee-company was not shareholder

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 116/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

199 Taxman 341 / 11 taxmann.com 100, provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not attracted in instant case Held, yes - Whether, therefore, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer under section 2(22)(e) was not justified - Held, yes. Punjab & Haryana High Court. CIT VS Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd [204 Taxman 82 (P & H HC11 Where assessee-company was not shareholder

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 1489/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C

2(24) or u/s. 28 of the Act has no merits. The AO was also not correct in stating that the assessee derived benefit within the meaning of Section 28(iv) of the Act by way of crediting the net consideration in the audited accounts and claiming the credit of TDS on the 'grossed up' amount, although the addition made

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 2082/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C

2(24) or u/s. 28 of the Act has no merits. The AO was also not correct in stating that the assessee derived benefit within the meaning of Section 28(iv) of the Act by way of crediting the net consideration in the audited accounts and claiming the credit of TDS on the 'grossed up' amount, although the addition made

TURNER MORRISON LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR, KOL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 530/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)

2 are now reflecting in the Form 26AS. The appellant submitted that it had received rental income from Cox and King, who after deducting TDS, had paid the rent to the appellant. However, the TDS so deducted on rent was not deposited by the Cox and King. The appellant on this issue submitted copies of letter written

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

Section 50." 2. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the High Court. 3. We are informed that the Gujrat High Court as well as Guahati High Court have also taken the same view in the following cases: i) CIT vs. Polestar Industries [2014] 41 taxmann.com 237/221 Taxman 423 ii) CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RG-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 685/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Senior Counsel
Section 143(3)

199 Taxman 149/336 ITR 434111 taxmann.com 51 (Punj & Har.) (iii) Justice Sam P Bharucha v. Addl. CIT [2012] 53 SOT 192/25 taxmann.com 381 (Mum. - Trib.) 7.2 The Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the AO and contended that the AO has duly satisfied himself in pursuance of provisions of Sec. 14A(2) that

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1267/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Senior Counsel
Section 143(3)

199 Taxman 149/336 ITR 434111 taxmann.com 51 (Punj & Har.) (iii) Justice Sam P Bharucha v. Addl. CIT [2012] 53 SOT 192/25 taxmann.com 381 (Mum. - Trib.) 7.2 The Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the AO and contended that the AO has duly satisfied himself in pursuance of provisions of Sec. 14A(2) that

SRI MANINDRA MOHAN MAZUMDAR,BURDWAN vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2201/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2201/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Manindra Mohan Vs. J.C.I.T, Range-1, Asansol Mazumdar Sahana Apartment Mother Teressa 19, Radhangar Road, Burnpur- 713325, Road, Lower Chelidanga, Asansol – Dist- Burdwan. 713304. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aelpm 0074 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14A

2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given.] We note that section 199 of the Income Tax Act clearly provides that whenever the assessee offered income, the TDS

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2079/KOL/2014[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)

2) is not merely a provision to provide information to the Income-tax Officer (TDS). It is a provision requiring tax to be deducted at source to be paid to the Revenue by the payer who makes payment to a non- resident. Therefore, section 195 has to be read in conformity with the charging provisions, i.e., sections

ITO (IT), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2249/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2249/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O. (International Taxation), -Vs.- M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 4975 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 201Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(i)

2) of the Act would become applicable, which is effective retrospectively from 1.6.1976 onwards , only for items falling u/s 9(1)(v) ; 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The payment of Commission to non-resident agents does not fall in any of the three clauses of section 9(1) of the Act. 12 M/s. Electrosteel Casting

SANDERSONS & MORGANS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1520/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2004-05 (Appellant ) (Respondent) Sandersans & Morgans -Versus- A.C.I.T., Circle-54, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Abbfs 4291 B) For The Appellant : Shri J.P.Khaitan & Shri S.Basu, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri D.Banerjee, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2015 Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Revenue Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cita In Appeal No. 85/Cit(A)-Xxxvii/Acit-54/08-09. Dated 18.03.2009 For The Asst Year 2004-05 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan & Shri S.Basu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.Banerjee, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(14)Section 199(3)

2 Sandersans & Morgans A.Yr.2004-05 tune of Rs. 5,38,193 ( 1498887-960694) in the assessment. Later the assessee firm filed a rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act on 28.5.2008 before the Learned AO enclosing the TDS certificate for Rs. 1,01,090/- seeking credit for TDS to the tune of Rs. 1,01,090/- based

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. L & T FINANCE LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 377/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 14ASection 249(3)Section 250

2)(i) r.w.s. section 199 of the Income Tax Act allows the credit of TDS in the hands of the person

L & T FINANCE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF L & T INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NOW MERGED),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A),NFAC,ITD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 645/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 14ASection 249(3)Section 250

2)(i) r.w.s. section 199 of the Income Tax Act allows the credit of TDS in the hands of the person

ACIT, CIRCLE-31, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAHEE JHAJHARIA E TO E JV, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off as above

ITA 1848/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am ] I.T.A No. 1848/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-31, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Rahee Jhajharia E To E Jv [Pan: Aabar 5042 H] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 115/Kol/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1848/Kol/2017) Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Rahee Jhajharia E To E Jv -Vs- Acit, Circle-31, Kolkata [Pan: Aabar 5042 H] (Respondent (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Pijush Mukherjee, JCITFor Respondent: Shri K.K.Khemka, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 199Section 199(3)

Section 199 of the Act, credited of TDS made on mobilization advance cannot be allowed in the current year. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by applying the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Central vs. Elsamex TWS-SNC(JV) had held that the mobilization advance

ITO, WARD-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NIRA FIRM DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 358/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Waseem Ahmed & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Vs M/S. Nira Firm Developers Pvt.Ltd., Ito, Ward-3(3), 261, 276-277/6, G.T.Road (N), Kolkata. Howrah-711106. Pan-Aaccn4245Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. A.Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Respondent By Sh. A.Kochar, Adv. Date Of Hearing 01.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2018

Section 143(3)Section 263

2. The appellant Revenue raised only ground reads as under:- 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the differential amount i.e. Rs.1,44,19,780/- [Rs.4,26,77,382/- minus Rs.2,82,57,602/-] which was added by the A.O. on account of undisclosed contractual receipts as evident from the details

D.C.I.T. CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S FIVES STEIN INDIA PROJECTS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 91/KOL/2013[2009-10 & 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

2 & 4 raised by the revenue are dismissed. 5. The last issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the Act would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the assesse claimed purchase

ITO, WD-31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BATA INDIA LTD. EMPLOYEES STATUTORY PROVIDENT FUND, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 103/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kr.Das, JCIT.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.Jhajharia, AR
Section 10Section 10(25)(ii)Section 139(1)Section 17Section 44A

section 199 of the Act the assessee was entitled to credit for tax deducted at source. The fact that the TDS certificate refers to assessment year 2005-06 is of no 6 7 M/s. Bata India Ltd. Employees Statutory Provident Fund. A.Yr.2006-07 consequence. The fact remains that the assessee has not claimed credit for TDS in any other