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.

54 results for “TDS”+ Section 220(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi583Patna469Mumbai391Bangalore149Pune114Hyderabad97Chennai93Karnataka91Visakhapatnam57Kolkata54Jaipur51Cochin48Raipur33Lucknow32Chandigarh31Ahmedabad28Indore28Nagpur19Rajkot10Kerala8Amritsar5Ranchi5Agra4Jodhpur4Surat3Cuttack3SC2Dehradun2Varanasi2Telangana1Rajasthan1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)38Addition to Income32Section 4031Disallowance27TDS25Section 14A24Deduction20Section 15419Section 26317Section 43B

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

section 250/201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee A.Ys. 1993-1994, 1998-1999 & 1999-2000 has filed these appeals before the Tribunal on the following common grounds:- “(1) That, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) wrongly assumed the facts narrated by the A.O. in his appeal effect order dated

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

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

15
Section 143(2)14
Section 6813
ITA 1482/KOL/2018[1998-99]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
25 Jan 2019
AY 1998-99

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

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

section 250/201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee A.Ys. 1993-1994, 1998-1999 & 1999-2000 has filed these appeals before the Tribunal on the following common grounds:- “(1) That, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) wrongly assumed the facts narrated by the A.O. in his appeal effect order dated

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

section 250/201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee A.Ys. 1993-1994, 1998-1999 & 1999-2000 has filed these appeals before the Tribunal on the following common grounds:- “(1) That, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) wrongly assumed the facts narrated by the A.O. in his appeal effect order dated

M/S. A.K. INDUSTRIES ,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 46, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 665/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 194CSection 234BSection 40

220 (6) was held to not be in accordance with law and such order was held, liable to be quashed. Considering the aforesaid submission, the judicial pronouncements relied upon and the circular of the CBDT (supra), e would request your kindseif to kindly grant the ITA No.665/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 M/s A.K. Industries Vs. ACIT, Cir-46 ,Kol Page

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 387/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

6. Further, under section 203 of the Act every person deducting tax in accordance with the provisions of the relevant section of the Act is required to furnish a certificate, inter alia, to the effect to the concerned person that tax has been deducted and specifying the amount so deducted, and the rate at which tax has been deducted

DCIT, CIRCLE-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EAST INDIA BUSINESS CENTRE (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1882/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 154

220,270 5. The AO rejected the petition filed by the Assessee vide his order under section 154 dated 2 March 2012 on the premise that the Assessee should have claimed TDS ITA No.1882/Kol/2014 M/s. East India Business Centre (P)Ltd A.Y.2008-09 3 credit by filing a revised return. The AO disregarded the original TDS certificates and indemnity bond filed

ADVANCEMULTISYSTEM BRODDBAND COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TDS),HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2191/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 194ASection 201Section 221

220. In the instant case, the assessee had deposited the TDS amount and interest thereon for such default before initiation of penalty proceedings. When the assessee had deposited the TDS and interest thereon, then assessee was not in default for such TDS payment and no penalty can be imposed u/s. 221 of the Act. We find that support from

TEESTA VALLEY EXPORTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 399/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri, S.S. Godaraassessment Year :2013-14 Teesta Valley Exports Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Circle – 4(2) Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th 3, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700 001. Floor, P-7, [Pan No Aaact 9980 D] Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 18-07-2018

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 19Section 194CSection 40

TDS liability by making payment through middleman credited by him. The only ground as taken by the assessee is that the amount was paid to these two persons were reimbursed. In view of above, the order of the AO is upheld and this ground of appeal is dismissed. 3. Learned Authorised Representative vehemently contends during the course of hearing that

IVL DHUNSERI PETROCHEM INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1712/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1712/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Ivl Dhunseri Petrochem Vs Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dhunseri House, 4A Woodburn Park, L.R.Sarani, West Bengal-700020 Pan No. :Aafcd 5214 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ca & Vidhi Ladia, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Pradip Kumar Mondal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26/07/2024, Passed By The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre U/S.143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) R.W.S.144B Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2020-2021 On The Following Grounds :- 1.(A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Tpo Erred In Making A Downward Adjustment Of Rs.24,72,79,392/- In Respect Of The Transfer Value Of Power By The Captive Power Plant At Haldia, West Bengal. (B) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Methodology Followed By The Assessee To Benchmark The Arm'S Length Value Of The Power Transferred By The Eligible Unit To The Non-Eligible Unit Fulfilled The Internal Cup Parameters & In That View Of The Matter The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made By The Tpo Was Impermissible On The Given Facts & In Law. (C) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Manner In Which The Drp/Tpo Has Benchmarked

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, CA and VidhiFor Respondent: Pradip Kumar Mondal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 80ISection 92C

TDS of Rs.1,47,89,550/- and TCS of Rs. 1,93,442/- while computing the tax payable/refundable. 5. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC was unjustified in not granting credit for DDT taxes of Rs. 1,31,04,000/- paid u/s 115-0 of the Act. 6

DCIT, CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. 3 GUYS, HOWRAH

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1670/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(3)

section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 C Act’) was issued by our office dated October 10, 2012 asking NSN India to furnish requisite information as Mis 3 Guys had claimed before your office that no payments amounting to Rs. 58.861.623 as specified in the subject TDS certificate were received by it. In response to the aforesaid notice

M/S AI CHAMPADANY INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1919/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 40

6,22,04,220/-. Under scrutiny, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. In response to the said notices, ld. A.R. of the assessee appeared and filed different details in support of return. The assessee produced documentary evidences to establish that the payments were made to parties claiming exemption for non deduction

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

220 (Kar) wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court relying on the decision in the case of Ishikawajma Harima (supra) held that the Explanation incorporated in Section 9 (By Finance Act, 2010) suggests that criterion of residence, place of business or business connection in India has been done away with for fastening the tax liability, but the criteria of rendering

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

220 (Kar) wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court relying on the decision in the case of Ishikawajma Harima (supra) held that the Explanation incorporated in Section 9 (By Finance Act, 2010) suggests that criterion of residence, place of business or business connection in India has been done away with for fastening the tax liability, but the criteria of rendering

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 1728/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR
Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

220/-, which was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). The statutory notices along with questionnaires were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee filed the revised return of income on 05.09.2018, after taking the effect of the merger with M/s Nextgen Commosales Private limited as per NCLT order, declaring total income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 1729/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR
Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

220/-, which was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). The statutory notices along with questionnaires were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee filed the revised return of income on 05.09.2018, after taking the effect of the merger with M/s Nextgen Commosales Private limited as per NCLT order, declaring total income

M/S POWER MAX (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8, KOL., KOLKATA

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

ITA 125/KOL/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 125/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Power Max (India) Pvt. Ltd....................................………………………….............Appellant 18A, Park Street, Stephen Court, Kolkata – 700 071. [Pan : Aabcp 9559 R] Dcit Circle 8 Kolkata..………………………………………………………….............Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Shri A.N. Chatterjee, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit (Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 05, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 15, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 18, Kolkata Dated 19.12.2016. 2. At The Time Of Hearing Before The Tribunal, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Pressed Ground No 1 Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee. It Is Also Noted That Ground No 4 Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal In General Which Does Not Call For Specific Adjudication.

Section 143(3)Section 194C(2)Section 194ISection 206ASection 40

220/- was disallowed by him under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO further noted that the assessee had failed to deduct tax on cumulative payment amounting to Rs. 37,23,755/-. He accordingly disallowed the said amount also under section 40(a)(ia). Thus a total disallowance of Rs. 1,16,51,016/- was made

REAL TIME ENGINEERING (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 602/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Real Time Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward- P-165/1 (A-2/2), Diamond Park 2(1), Kolkata. Vs. Kalua, South 24 Parganas- 700104, West Bengal, India. (Pan: Aaccr1055M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 43B of the Act. In respect of employees’ contribution the decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd (supra) be adhered to. Needless to say that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being 3 Real Time Engineering P. Ltd., AY 2018-19 heard to submit its explanation and documentary evidence

JCIT (OSD), CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KALAMKARI DESIGNS (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1310/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1310/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Jcit(Osd), Circle-11(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Kalamkari Designs Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabck 2117 N ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14A

6) of the Act as the assessee had duly discharged its initial burden by filing all the requisite details. It was also argued that subsequently the assessee was able to prevail over the payees and obtained the requisite details. The ledger account of the assessee in the books of M/s Sofia Fashions was filed, wherein , it could be noticed that

M/S KINNOR KINNOREE,KOLKATA vs. CIT-X, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

TDS has been made by the assessee. Therefore, all the above mentioned amounts were required to have been added to total income u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act if no tax was deducted from payment to contractors/sub-contractors u/s 194C, the expenditure was not deductible from the earnings

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA vs. M/S SREELEATHERS , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 254/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

TDS deduction. According to Ld. CIT(A), the business sense of extending such loan to a brand like Sreeleathers/assessee cannot be ignored. The Ld. CIT(A) notes that he has taken note of the replies given by the lender companies pursuant to the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act which were duly served upon them and from the replies