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.

78 results for “TDS”+ Section 221(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi282Mumbai273Bangalore176Chennai118Karnataka90Kolkata78Ahmedabad61Jaipur33Raipur32Cochin29Hyderabad27Pune23Rajkot13Lucknow10Jodhpur10Surat8Guwahati6Amritsar6Visakhapatnam5Chandigarh5Indore5SC5Cuttack4Nagpur3Kerala3Agra2Telangana2Jabalpur2Ranchi2Allahabad2Patna1Dehradun1

Key Topics

TDS44Section 143(3)43Section 201(1)39Deduction33Section 115J29Addition to Income29Disallowance26Section 20122Section 14722Section 144

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 133(6)Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

TDS-3 Vs M/s Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd [ ITA No. 63/Mum/09]. I however find the submissions of the ld. AR to be untenable in the context of the amendments brought in Section 9(1)(vii) by the Legislature in the Finance Act, 2010. 5. The Explanation to Section 9(2) was inserted by the Legislature which clarified that irrespective whether services

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

Showing 1–20 of 78 · Page 1 of 4

22
Section 25022
Section 4017

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

221 from such person, unless the Assessing Officer is satisfied that such person, without good and sufficient reasons, has failed to deduct and pay such tax. (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if any such person, principal officer or company as is referred to in that sub-section does not deduct the whole or any part

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

TDS. As we have already seen the payments to be made by GRSE are net of taxes on income if any payable in India. In other words such taxes have to be borne by GRSE. Sec.195A of the provides that in a case, where under an agreement or other arrangement, the tax chargeable on any income referred to in Chapter

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

TDS. As we have already seen the payments to be made by GRSE are net of taxes on income if any payable in India. In other words such taxes have to be borne by GRSE. Sec.195A of the provides that in a case, where under an agreement or other arrangement, the tax chargeable on any income referred to in Chapter

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

221 ii. Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala 60 ITR 262 (SC) iii. Reliance vs. CIT 120 ITR 921 (SC) Thus, since the law as in the captioned assessment year provides for the deduction to be claimed in any 10 years out of the initial 15 years, the Appellant would be entitled to claim 100% deduction

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

221 ii. Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala 60 ITR 262 (SC) iii. Reliance vs. CIT 120 ITR 921 (SC) Thus, since the law as in the captioned assessment year provides for the deduction to be claimed in any 10 years out of the initial 15 years, the Appellant would be entitled to claim 100% deduction

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

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

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

221 ii. Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala 60 ITR 262 (SC) iii. Reliance vs. CIT 120 ITR 921 (SC) Thus, since the law as in the captioned assessment year provides for the deduction to be claimed in any 10 years out of the initial 15 years, the Appellant would be entitled to claim 100% deduction

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

221 ii. Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala 60 ITR 262 (SC) iii. Reliance vs. CIT 120 ITR 921 (SC) Thus, since the law as in the captioned assessment year provides for the deduction to be claimed in any 10 years out of the initial 15 years, the Appellant would be entitled to claim 100% deduction

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

221 ii. Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala 60 ITR 262 (SC) iii. Reliance vs. CIT 120 ITR 921 (SC) Thus, since the law as in the captioned assessment year provides for the deduction to be claimed in any 10 years out of the initial 15 years, the Appellant would be entitled to claim 100% deduction

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

221 ii. Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala 60 ITR 262 (SC) iii. Reliance vs. CIT 120 ITR 921 (SC) Thus, since the law as in the captioned assessment year provides for the deduction to be claimed in any 10 years out of the initial 15 years, the Appellant would be entitled to claim 100% deduction

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

221 ii. Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala 60 ITR 262 (SC) iii. Reliance vs. CIT 120 ITR 921 (SC) Thus, since the law as in the captioned assessment year provides for the deduction to be claimed in any 10 years out of the initial 15 years, the Appellant would be entitled to claim 100% deduction

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

221 ii. Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs. State of Kerala 60 ITR 262 (SC) iii. Reliance vs. CIT 120 ITR 921 (SC) Thus, since the law as in the captioned assessment year provides for the deduction to be claimed in any 10 years out of the initial 15 years, the Appellant would be entitled to claim 100% deduction

ELLENBARRIE INDUSTRIAL GASES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed, and ground

ITA 1687/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1687/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ellenbarrie Industrial Gases Vs. Ito, Ward-8(2), Kolkata Ltd. 34, Ripon Street, Kolkata – 700016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaace 5770 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri A.K. Bandyopadhyay, Fca Respondent By :Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-16, Kolkata, In Appeal No.352/Cit(A)-16/Kol/2014-15/W-8(2), Dated 13.07.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S154/143(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 16-04-2009. 2.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Lncome Tax (Appeals)- 16, To The Extent That He Has Confirmed The Order Of Ld. Lncome Tax Officer Ward 8(2) Kolkata, Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Lncome Tax (Appeals)-16 Had Ignored The Fact That Assessed Tax For The Purpose Of Section 234B & 234C Of The Lncome Tax Act 1961 Was Computed Without Considering Available Mat Credit Of Rs.12,91,616/-Upto The Assessment Year 2006-2007. Computation Of Lnterest Under Section 234B & 234C Was Not Made In Accordance With Explanation 1(V) To Sub-Section (1) Of Section 234B & 234C Of Lncome Tax Act 1961;

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 234B

TDS of Rs.4,36,617/- was allowed to the assessee company. The assessee company, in the petition further claimed that interest u/s 234B and 234C were not leviable in the case of the Ellenbarrie Industrial Gases Ltd. Assessment Year: 2007-08 company for the reason that assessee company did not make payment of advance tax on the basis

ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUNDARLAL MOHANLAL SARDA & OTHERS, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 116/KOL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :007-08

Section 147Section 148

section 147. 16. For the above reasons, we answer the substantial question of law framed by us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” There is a vast difference between the issue of notice u/s. 143(2) and notice

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)

221 of the Act. Besides this, outside Chapter XVII, penalty can also be levied under Section 271 C. 8.8 In addition, thereto, a person who fails to deposit tax deducted at source, under the provisions of Chapter VII-B, is liable for punishment with rigorous imprisonment under Section 276B. 8.9 That said, both impositions of penalty and prosecution are subject

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

section 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

SIKKIM DISTILLERIES LIMITED,EAST SIKKIM vs. D.C.I.T. (TDS), GANGTOK, GANGTOK

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1050/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 144Section 147Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206CSection 206C(7)

TDS), Circle 5, Gangtok [Ld. AO’]. 2. That the Ld. AO passed separate orders dated 18.12.2018 under sections 201(1) r.w.s. 2O1(1A) and 206C(6A) r.w.s. 206C(7) of the Act for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. 3. Against the demands raised by the Ld. AO vide

SIKKIM DISTILLERIES LIMITED,EAST SIKKIM vs. D.C.I.T. (TDS), GANGTOK, GANGTOK

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1049/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 144Section 147Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206CSection 206C(7)

TDS), Circle 5, Gangtok [Ld. AO’]. 2. That the Ld. AO passed separate orders dated 18.12.2018 under sections 201(1) r.w.s. 2O1(1A) and 206C(6A) r.w.s. 206C(7) of the Act for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. 3. Against the demands raised by the Ld. AO vide

SIKKKIM DISTILLERIES LIMITED,EAST SIKKIM vs. D.C.I.T. (TDS), GANGTOK, GANGTOK

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1048/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 144Section 147Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206CSection 206C(7)

TDS), Circle 5, Gangtok [Ld. AO’]. 2. That the Ld. AO passed separate orders dated 18.12.2018 under sections 201(1) r.w.s. 2O1(1A) and 206C(6A) r.w.s. 206C(7) of the Act for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. 3. Against the demands raised by the Ld. AO vide

SIKKIM DISTILLERIES LIMITED,EAST SIKKIM vs. D.C.I.T.(TDS), CIRCLE - 5, GANGTOK, GANGTOK

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1052/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 144Section 147Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206CSection 206C(7)

TDS), Circle 5, Gangtok [Ld. AO’]. 2. That the Ld. AO passed separate orders dated 18.12.2018 under sections 201(1) r.w.s. 2O1(1A) and 206C(6A) r.w.s. 206C(7) of the Act for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. 3. Against the demands raised by the Ld. AO vide