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.

38 results for “TDS”+ Section 249(4)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai267Delhi227Chennai101Bangalore94Karnataka88Raipur63Chandigarh53Cochin41Kolkata38Jaipur31Pune28Hyderabad23Indore22Ahmedabad22Lucknow16Visakhapatnam11Surat6Rajkot5Agra4Varanasi4Cuttack3Guwahati3Telangana2Amritsar2Nagpur2Dehradun1Patna1Jodhpur1Kerala1Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income22Section 4020Section 201(1)18Disallowance18TDS17Deduction17Section 143(3)16Section 14A15Section 14415Section 250

GRAPHITE INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 618/KOL/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 618/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Graphite India Limited,.........................Appellant 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700016 [Pan: Aaacc0457C] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 200ASection 201Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

249(2) of die Act. 6.0 We humbly pray that the matter relating to condonation of delay be considered liberally and may kindly be judged broadly. 7.0 Hence, it is humbly prayed that the delay in filing appeal be condoned and the appeal memo be admitted and the appeal be decided on merits”. 7. We have perused this explanation

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

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 808
Condonation of Delay8

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)

249,869 TOTAL 963,749 43,050,675 4,305,067 Further, while passing the assessment order, the Ld. AO has observed that as per Sale of Goods Act, 1932 ('SOG Act'), sale is concluded at the time of its acceptance and that' Acceptance' does not mean mere receipt of goods but means checking the goods to ascertain whether they

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. MARKETING DIVISION (EASTERN REGION),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 58 (TDS)/KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1517/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

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

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

249 2003-04 10,51,87,592 21,56,344 10,35,024 The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) pleaded that there was an agreement between BRPL and the assessee-company. As per clause 8.4 of agreement, the payment was to be made for the marketing rights vested with IOC and also loading of products through loading infrastructure which

GAUTAM KUMAR MITRA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 44A

b) – ditto - Rs.21,223 (c) Amount of TDS for which payment not received during the year, but for which TDS credit claimed Rs. 3,247 (d) - ditto- Rs. 3,247 (e) Miscellaneous receipt Rs. 4,376 Rs.53,316 8. It can be seen from the above that the Assessee had accounted for as income the TDS in respect of which

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

249(3) read with section 250. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards CBDT Circular No. 20/2016 dated 26.05.2016. In this Circular, the CBDT has provided that mandatory filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) electronically would be made applicable from 15.06.2016. In other words, prior to 15.06.2016 if any appeal has been filed

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

249(3) read with section 250. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards CBDT Circular No. 20/2016 dated 26.05.2016. In this Circular, the CBDT has provided that mandatory filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) electronically would be made applicable from 15.06.2016. In other words, prior to 15.06.2016 if any appeal has been filed

KANOI TEA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. P.C.I.T. - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 5

249 of the Act, which provides power to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and consideration of this expression has fallen for consideration before the Hon’ble High Courts as well as before

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

ITA 737/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Shri S. Dey, CA & Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 154Section 72

b) That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that there was no brought forward unabsorbed losses in the Assessee’s Books of Account as on 31.03.2009 merely because the assessee’s Statutory Auditor set off such Brought forward business losses with its General Reserve instead of showing these two item separately. 4. That since both

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

ITA 738/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Shri S. Dey, CA & Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 154Section 72

b) That the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that there was no brought forward unabsorbed losses in the Assessee’s Books of Account as on 31.03.2009 merely because the assessee’s Statutory Auditor set off such Brought forward business losses with its General Reserve instead of showing these two item separately. 4. That since both

ALLAHABAD BANK, NAKTALA BRANCH,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, TDS RG.57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1384/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1384/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Allahabad Bank, Vs. Jcit(Tds), Range-57, 10B, Middleton Row, 8Th Floor, Naktala Branch, 364/23A, Nsc Bose Road, Kolkata-700071 Kolkata-700040 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Cala 06329 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Tapas Dutta, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvi, Kolkata, In Appeal No.138/Cit(A)-Xvi/Jcit,R-57/13-14/Kol, Dated 28.02.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Jt.Commissoner Of Income Tax-Tds (Ao),U/S.272A(2)(K)/274 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 08.12.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Quarterly Tds Returns Late Therefore The Assessing Officer (Tds) Imposed Penalty On The Assessee U/S 272A(2)(K) Of The Act At Rs.50,336/- 3. The Captioned Appeal Is Time Barred By 32 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Said Appeal. The Assessee Explained The Reasons For Delay Stating That Assessee Is A Schedule Bank

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Dutta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT
Section 1Section 206ASection 249Section 272Section 272A(2)(k)

B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Tapas Dutta, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 23/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. SHRI PINTU BHATTACHARJEE, BURDWAN

Appeal is dismissed accordingly

ITA 1/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Acit, Circle-1, V/S. Shri Pintu Bhattacharjee Aayakar Bhavan, Court Memari Old Lic Math, G.T. Compound,Burdwan- Road, Memari, 713101 Burdwan-713146 [Pan No.Adepb 8283 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent S.M.S. Tauheed, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Asamsol’S Order Dated 30.10.2014 In Case No.178/C.I.T.(A)/Asl/Acit/Cir-1/Bwn/13-14, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3)/144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue’S Identical Former Grievance Pleads That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts On The Deleting Disallowance / Additions Of ₹39,94,137/- Pertaining To Higher Depreciation Rate Claimed On Transmit Complete Mixer & Loaders & Also Granting Relief Of ₹4,73,249/- Regarding Lower Loader Machine; Respectively. We Notice That Cit(A) Discuss In On This Issue Reads As Under:- “6. Ground 2 Is Against Not Granting Depreciation At Higher Rates For Concrete Mixers & Payloaders, Vibrator Soil Compactor Etc. Is Settled In The Cases Reported In Vikram Ispat Vs. State Of Maharastra Air 2003 Bombay 498 P

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

249/- regarding lower loader machine; respectively. We notice that CIT(A) discuss in on this issue reads as under:- “6. Ground 2 is against not granting depreciation at higher rates for Concrete Mixers and Payloaders, vibrator soil compactor etc. is settled in the cases reported in Vikram Ispat vs. State of Maharastra AIR 2003 Bombay 498 P ITA No.01/Kol/2015 A.Y.2010-11

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

ITA 453/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Ray, Advocate, Shri S. N. Patra & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

TDS or TCS statement but the amount is over claimed in the statement. Final F Credit will be reflected only when deductor reduces claimed amount in the statement or makes additional payment for excess amount claimed in the statement. All these transactions reported are not in the category of F (Final). But the AO did not consider this and passed

SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 765/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Saregama India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of 33, Jessore Road, Dum Dum, Vs. Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Kolkata-700028. Kolkata. (PAN: AAACT9815B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri K. M. Gupta, AR Respondent by : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT-TDS, CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1580/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 201(1)

TDS), Circle-2, 10B, Middleton Row, 7th Floor, Kolkata-700 071 at page 11 below para 6 which is stated as under: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1579 to 1582/Kol/2019 AYs: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19 Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited) “6. For attracting provisions of section of 194H of the Act it is essential that assessee Company

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT-TDS, CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1582/KOL/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 201(1)

TDS), Circle-2, 10B, Middleton Row, 7th Floor, Kolkata-700 071 at page 11 below para 6 which is stated as under: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1579 to 1582/Kol/2019 AYs: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19 Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited) “6. For attracting provisions of section of 194H of the Act it is essential that assessee Company

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT-TDS, CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1581/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 201(1)

TDS), Circle-2, 10B, Middleton Row, 7th Floor, Kolkata-700 071 at page 11 below para 6 which is stated as under: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1579 to 1582/Kol/2019 AYs: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19 Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited) “6. For attracting provisions of section of 194H of the Act it is essential that assessee Company

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (FORMERLY IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT-TDS, CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1579/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 201(1)

TDS), Circle-2, 10B, Middleton Row, 7th Floor, Kolkata-700 071 at page 11 below para 6 which is stated as under: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1579 to 1582/Kol/2019 AYs: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19 Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited) “6. For attracting provisions of section of 194H of the Act it is essential that assessee Company

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CREATIVE TECHNOTEX (P) LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 2035/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Vs M/S. Creative Technotex (P.) Ltd., Dcit, Circle-10(1), 73/29. Golf Club Road, Kolkata. Kolkata-700033. Pan-Aadcc9167C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Respondent By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing 08.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2018

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

4. The contention of the assessee before the CIT(A) in first appellate proceedings was that all the relevant details of incurring such sales promotion expenses filed in the assessment proceedings and the AO never doubled the genuineness of the expenditure relating to sales promotion. Further, the TDS was deducted on commission paid to C& F agents and no TDS

THE ADVERTISING CORPORATION OF INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1624/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: The Itat Through The Following Grounds:

Section 250Section 40

b) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 44,630/-. (c) Rs. 87,500/- disallowed on account of rent expenses. 2 The Advertising Corporation of India Pvt. Ltd. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed these additions. 2. Aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT through the following grounds: “1. For that

JAY BHARAT CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 883/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.883 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.Dr
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 201Section 40

4. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in Civil Engineering Construction. The return of income for the Asst Year 2009-10 was filed by the assessee on 29.9.2009 declaring total income of Rs 27,49,701/-. The ld AO observed from the details of ‘Piece Rate Wages’ furnished by the assessee