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.

99 results for “TDS”+ Section 234Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi895Mumbai811Bangalore424Kolkata99Ahmedabad77Chennai69Hyderabad66Jaipur41Karnataka29Pune29Chandigarh28Indore20Agra18Ranchi13Cochin10Surat10Lucknow9Rajkot8Visakhapatnam7Nagpur7Raipur5Allahabad5Jabalpur4Patna4Dehradun4Cuttack4Telangana2Guwahati2Jodhpur1SC1Amritsar1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)109Deduction47Addition to Income46Section 234B45Section 115J45TDS45Section 143(1)42Section 244A40Section 4034Section 250

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)

Showing 1–20 of 99 · Page 1 of 5

29
Disallowance29
Section 15423
Section 115J
Section 143(1)
Section 154
Section 234B

Section 234B and 234C of lncome Tax Act 1961; Ellenbarrie Industrial Gases Ltd. Assessment Year: 2007-08 and also violative of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. TULSYAN NECL LTD. (2011) 196 TAXMAN 181. The order of Learned Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-16 is bad in law. 3. ln the computation of Assessed Tax, TDS

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2114/KOL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

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

Section 115JSection 32

TDS of Rs.26.75 crores, refund of the excess tax along with interest aggregating to Rs.3.07 crores was granted to the assessee as per intimation issued under section 143(1) on 31.01.2008. Subsequently, in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 30.12.2008, the Assessing Officer added back provision for deferred tax liability, provision for doubtful advance

LOVELY DAS,DUM DUM vs. ADDL/JCIT, NASHIK

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 292/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

TDS which is naturally in the name of Late Jagbandhu Das. 4. That the Learned Assessing Officer and ADDL/JCIT(A)-NASHIK also has erred in computing Interest under Section 234A of Rs.28,421, 234B

LOVELY DAS,DUMDUM vs. ADDL/JCIT, NASHIK

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 291/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

TDS which is naturally in the name of Late Jagbandhu Das. 4. That the Learned Assessing Officer and ADDL/JCIT(A)-NASHIK also has erred in computing Interest under Section 234A of Rs.28,421, 234B

LOVELY DAS,DUM DUM vs. ADDL/JCIT, NASHIK

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 293/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

TDS which is naturally in the name of Late Jagbandhu Das. 4. That the Learned Assessing Officer and ADDL/JCIT(A)-NASHIK also has erred in computing Interest under Section 234A of Rs.28,421, 234B

LOVELY DAS,DUM DUM vs. ADDL/JCIT, NASHIK

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 294/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

TDS which is naturally in the name of Late Jagbandhu Das. 4. That the Learned Assessing Officer and ADDL/JCIT(A)-NASHIK also has erred in computing Interest under Section 234A of Rs.28,421, 234B

DCIT(EXAM),CIR-1(1), KOLKATA vs. G.D. CHARITABLE SOCIETY , MURSHIDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 291/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

TDS which is naturally in the name of Late Jagbandhu Das. 4. That the Learned Assessing Officer and ADDL/JCIT(A)-NASHIK also has erred in computing Interest under Section 234A of Rs.28,421, 234B

SHALIMAR FABRICATORS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 is allowed and the appeal for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed

ITA 386/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 23ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43BSection 44A

TDS late payment interest under section 37. 2. For that the erred in law and on facts in not giving specific directions to allow claim under section 43B of Rs.8,43,343/- paid this year (AY 2018-19) on payment basis attach added Bank in earlier years. 3. That the NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming

SHALIMAR FABRICATORS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 is allowed and the appeal for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed

ITA 428/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 23ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43BSection 44A

TDS late payment interest under section 37. 2. For that the erred in law and on facts in not giving specific directions to allow claim under section 43B of Rs.8,43,343/- paid this year (AY 2018-19) on payment basis attach added Bank in earlier years. 3. That the NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming

UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL FUND LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C IRCLE- 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1838/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2007-08

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

TDS which was being shown under CASS but the same was never taken in the income of assessee. On the other hand, Ld. DR has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities. 10. We have considered the rival submissions of the Ld. representatives of the both parties and materials available on record. From the aforesaid discussion, we find that

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 609/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. No. 622/Kol/2017 Assessment Year 2008-09 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd...............................……………………………….........................Appellant Bengal Eco Entelligent Park (Techna), Tower – 1, Block – Em, Plot No. – 3, Sector – V, Salt Lake City, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] D.C.I.T. Cir 11(1)...................…………………………………………......................................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 I.T.A. No. 609/Kol/2017 Assessment Year 2008-09 D.C.I.T. Cir 11(1)...................………………………………………….........................................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd...............................………………………………...................Respondent Bengal Eco Entelligent Park (Techna), Tower – 1, Block – Em, Plot No. – 3, Sector – V, Salt Lake City, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Appearances By: Shri H Chakraborty, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 01, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 22, 2018 Order Shri P.M. Jagtapthese Two Appeals, One Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 622/K/2017 & The Other Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 609/K/2017, Are Cross Appeals Which Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 10, Kolkata Dated 30.01.2017. 2. The Issue Involved In Ground No. 1 Of The Assessee’S Appeal Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs. 57,53,60,000/- Made By The A.O. & 2 I.T.A. Nos. 622 & 609/Kol/2017 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Unexplained Excess Consumption Of Raw Material (Nahptha).

Section 143(3)

TDS of Rs. 26.75 crores, refund of the excess tax along with interest aggregating to Rs. 3.07 crores was granted to the assessee as per intimation issued under section 143(1) on 31.01.2008. Subsequently, in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 30.12.2008, the Assessing Officer added back provision for deferred tax liability, provision for doubtful

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 622/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. No. 622/Kol/2017 Assessment Year 2008-09 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd...............................……………………………….........................Appellant Bengal Eco Entelligent Park (Techna), Tower – 1, Block – Em, Plot No. – 3, Sector – V, Salt Lake City, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] D.C.I.T. Cir 11(1)...................…………………………………………......................................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 I.T.A. No. 609/Kol/2017 Assessment Year 2008-09 D.C.I.T. Cir 11(1)...................………………………………………….........................................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd...............................………………………………...................Respondent Bengal Eco Entelligent Park (Techna), Tower – 1, Block – Em, Plot No. – 3, Sector – V, Salt Lake City, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Appearances By: Shri H Chakraborty, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 01, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 22, 2018 Order Shri P.M. Jagtapthese Two Appeals, One Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 622/K/2017 & The Other Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 609/K/2017, Are Cross Appeals Which Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 10, Kolkata Dated 30.01.2017. 2. The Issue Involved In Ground No. 1 Of The Assessee’S Appeal Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs. 57,53,60,000/- Made By The A.O. & 2 I.T.A. Nos. 622 & 609/Kol/2017 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Unexplained Excess Consumption Of Raw Material (Nahptha).

Section 143(3)

TDS of Rs. 26.75 crores, refund of the excess tax along with interest aggregating to Rs. 3.07 crores was granted to the assessee as per intimation issued under section 143(1) on 31.01.2008. Subsequently, in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 30.12.2008, the Assessing Officer added back provision for deferred tax liability, provision for doubtful

YOGESH TRANSPORT PVT LTD,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1326/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 40Section 69C

TDS provisions. The levy of\ninterest under Sections 234B and 234C is valid as it is mandatory for default in\nadvance

M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 539/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

234B of the Act. 11. Interest under section 234D 11.1. The Learned AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 1,61,67,498 under section 234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A 12.1. The Learned AO erred in recovering interest of Rs. 42,39,613 under section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 863/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

234B of the Act. 11. Interest under section 234D 11.1. The Learned AO erred in levying interest of Rs. 1,61,67,498 under section 234D of the Act. 12. Interest under section 244A 12.1. The Learned AO erred in recovering interest of Rs. 42,39,613 under section 244A of the Act. 13. Penalty

SHREE RAGHUNATH STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1254/KOL/2016[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

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

Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

TDS and charging interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. Similarly the reassessment for A.Y. 2009-10 was computed

S R B C & CO. LLP,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 236/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 43B

TDS of Rs. 5,80,08,678; Levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act 7. erred in levying

AT & S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. DCIT-RANGE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s is allowed

ITA 2305/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 40Section 90(2)

TDS provision as it does not generate any income in the hands of the recipient and consequently the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked. Hence this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. ITA No.1160 & 2305/Kol/2013 A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2004-05 DCIT Cir-11, Kol v. M/s AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 Coming

D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AT & S INDIA PVT LTD, KARNATAKA

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s is allowed

ITA 1160/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 40Section 90(2)

TDS provision as it does not generate any income in the hands of the recipient and consequently the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked. Hence this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. ITA No.1160 & 2305/Kol/2013 A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2004-05 DCIT Cir-11, Kol v. M/s AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 Coming

HITT HOLLAND INSTITUTE OF TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGY B. V. vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 574/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hitt Holland Institute Of Traffic -Vs.- D.D.I.T. (Intl.T)-1, Technology B.V., Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabch 5694 R] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Agarwal, Ar For The Respondent : Shri.G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri.G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

section 234A and 234B of the Act as directed by the Hon'ble DRP. Accordingly, relief on this ground has already been given and hence, the same may not be relevant for adjudication in the appeals. Hence the ground of appeal is dismissed as infructuous. 54. In Ground F- 2, the Assessee has projected its grievance regarding the action