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.

37 results for “TDS”+ Section 268clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi320Mumbai245Bangalore103Karnataka83Chennai76Hyderabad68Ahmedabad38Kolkata37Jaipur31Nagpur25Chandigarh22Visakhapatnam17Raipur15Pune14Lucknow14Patna8Guwahati7Cochin6Indore5Cuttack4Surat4Jodhpur3Calcutta2Jabalpur2Rajkot2Amritsar1Panaji1SC1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)33Section 26328Section 14720Section 153A20Addition to Income19Section 6818Deduction17Disallowance14TDS14Section 80I

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

ITA 1615/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and the appellant's payment of commission, without TDS will not be hit U/S 40(a)(i). Also, the jurisdictional High Court (Delhi HC) in CIT vs. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd. 203 Taxman 268

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 14810
Section 408
ITA 1616/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and the appellant's payment of commission, without TDS will not be hit U/S 40(a)(i). Also, the jurisdictional High Court (Delhi HC) in CIT vs. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd. 203 Taxman 268

TRIDENT LEATHER ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 54, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1360/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

TDS deduction. I quote hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision in this Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 339 (Bombay) and find no reason to accept Revenue’s instant argument as it still fails to prove from the case records that the assessee’s disclosure made was either not complete or not true. I therefore hold

ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HARSHWARDHAN GEMS P. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

ITA 1337/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. B. Pramanik, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

268 ITR 211 (Del) is also on the same lines. 13. There cannot be two opinions on the aspect that the pernicious practice of conversion of unaccounted money through the masquerade or channel of investment in the share capital of a company must be firmly excoriated by the Revenue. Equally, where the preponderance of evidence indicates absence of culpability

HARSHWARDHAN GEMS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

ITA 1070/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. B. Pramanik, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

268 ITR 211 (Del) is also on the same lines. 13. There cannot be two opinions on the aspect that the pernicious practice of conversion of unaccounted money through the masquerade or channel of investment in the share capital of a company must be firmly excoriated by the Revenue. Equally, where the preponderance of evidence indicates absence of culpability

DUNCANS TEA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1961/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri: Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 40

268 TCT Hi-ways Pvt. Ltd. 3,82,834 Transport Corpn. of India Ltd. 22,988 Varuna Integrated Logistics P. Ltd. 4,72,556 Rs. 18,16,096/- During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain why TDS was not made and such expenses should not be disallowed U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee submitted

MAITHAN CERAMIC LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1944/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri P.K.Himmatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)

268 ITR\ne. Loan Transaction Already Verified in Scrutiny Assessment\nThe loan of 21 crore from M/s. Nidhi Agro Pvt. Ltd. was thoroughly\nexamined during the original assessment under Section 143(3) and\nwas accepted after verification, including confirmation, bank\nstatements, TDS

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

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1354/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

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 certificate is essential. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 6. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a) (i) of the Act:— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

ITO, WARD - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2163/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2163/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CITFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA
Section 133Section 143(3)

TDS. Next came the “addendum” developments. The assessee’s case was that its original agreement dated 16.04.2009 stipulated payments under the above two heads of ₹ 60 and 6 crores as revised to ₹56 and 4 crores and all the applicable taxes. The relevant service tax at that point of time was 10.3%. This increased the former figure

ITO, WARD-2(3), DURGAPUR, KOLKATA vs. M/S HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2266/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Height Insurance Ward-2(3), R/No.10/21, Services Ltd., Room 7Th Floor, Aayakar No.319,3Rd Floor, Bhawan, P-7, Kamalaya Centre, 156A, Chowringhee Square, Lenin Sarani, Kolakta-13 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aacch 0943 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-05-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.08.2016 In Case No. 188/Cit(A)-14/Wd-1(1)/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue’S Solitary Grievance Pleaded In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revive Section 37 R.W 40(A)(Ia) Disallowances / Addition Of ₹66,18,00,000/- Pertaining To Assessee’S Service Charges Paid To M/S Golden Trust Financial Services (Gtfs) Hereafter For Having Acted As Its Agent. It’S Next Two Averments Are That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Examining Assessee’S Exclusive Method Of Accounting In Service Tax Receivable On Output Services As Against Inclusive Method Of Service Tax

Section 143(3)Section 37

section 37 r.w 40(a)(ia) disallowances / addition of ₹66,18,00,000/- pertaining to assessee’s service charges paid to M/s Golden Trust Financial Services (GTFS) hereafter for having acted as its agent. It’s next two averments are that the CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in examining assessee’s exclusive method

I.T.O WD - 28(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAN VIJAY SINGH, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2038/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 May 2016AY 2004-05

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

Section 194ISection 271C

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.” Taking a consistent view in the case of Gourishankra Bihani (supra) we find that as such there was no need on the part of assessee to deduct TDS from the payment made to KPT. In the similar facts of the case in Civil Appeal No. 1704 of 2008 dated

SUNIL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1397/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shris.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Dr.A.L. Saini, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: ShriA.K.Tibrewal–FCAFor Respondent: ShriSnehanshu Biswas-JCIT-SR DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

TDS. But, mere deduction of tax from interest does not prove the alleged loan transaction in the instant case as genuine. It is evident that the intention of the assessee was to drag the time baring proceedings towards the limitation date for the reason best known to him. 7.5 In case of one of the alleged loan creditors, Subrta

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1199/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Barun Kumar Ghosh & Shri Piyush Dey, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

268,76,31,809 in the accounts, the bank is eligible for deduction for an amount of Rs. 544,78,26,226 as per calculation made under section 36(1 )(viia). The entitlement for deduction cannot be restricted to the extent of only provision created in the books subject to the upper limits laid down in Sec.36(1)((viia

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVIMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1599/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

268 (Delhi)', the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had held the following:\n\"In the context of section 68 of the Income-tax Act the assessee has to prima facie prove:\n(1). the identity of the creditor/subscriber;\n(2). the genuineness of the transaction, namely whether it has been transmitted through banking or other indisputable channels

SHELTER INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. A.O. CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

ITA 421/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.421/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shelter Infra Projects Ltd…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant Dn-1 Sector V Eternity Building, Sector V, Salt Lake Sech Bhavan, Kolkata – 700091. [Pan: Aabcc2304F] Vs. A.O, Circle-11(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 10, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. This Is Second Round Of Appeal Before Us. Earlier, The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 12.10.2018 Had Remanded The Matter To The File Of The Assessing Officer For De Novo Assessment. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019 Made The Impugned Additions Assessing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.23,98,20,955/-. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Additions So Made By The Assessing Officer Vide

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 201 of the Act certifying the aforesaid payment to M/s Sarda Vanijya (P) Ltd. by the assessee and TDS was duly deducted thereupon and further that the payee had duly taken into consideration the aforesaid payments in its return of income. The ld. counsel has also invited our attention to pages 87 & 88 of the paper-book to submit

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

M/S. HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 549/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2006-07

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 43B

268 (SC) wherein it has been held that if the amount has been deposited before filing of return, the same is entitled to deduction under section 43B of the Income-tax Act. We, therefore, find that the Tribunal appeal rightly deleted the said addition made by the C.I.T.(Appeals. No substantial law being involved in this appeal, we summarily dismiss

ITO, (E) -II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DEBI KAMAL ESTATE TRUST, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue on ground No

ITA 862/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.862/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2004-05) Ito(E)-Ii Vs. Debi Kamal Estate Trust, Kolkata 5Th , 10B, 7, Queens Park, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700020 Kolkata-700071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatd 7600 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Animesh Mukherjee, FCA &For Respondent: Shri R.P.Nag, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated, 09.07.2009 2 Co.No.68/Kol/2013 Debi Kamal Estate Trust 2. Brief facts of the case qua the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2004-05 on dated 31.03.2005 declaring total income at Nil. The Return of income