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 277clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi196Mumbai172Patna151Bangalore118Karnataka104Chandigarh57Cochin57Chennai52Ahmedabad45Kolkata38Jaipur30Hyderabad26Indore17Rajkot16Raipur15Jodhpur9Visakhapatnam8Pune7Nagpur6Himachal Pradesh6Lucknow5Guwahati5Cuttack4Telangana3Amritsar3Surat3Allahabad2SC2Rajasthan1Jabalpur1Panaji1

Key Topics

Disallowance26Section 143(3)22Addition to Income22Section 14A20Section 8016TDS15Section 115J13Section 4012Section 14411Section 80I

DCIT, CIRCLE - 57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1939/KOL/2010[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Dr. Adhir Kumar Bar, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Bajoria, Sr. Advocate
Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194DSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

section 194C or sec. 194D of the Act i.e. the TDS provisions. The Ld. Sr. DR could not reply on this. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) and also Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 6810
Deduction10

D.C.I.T. CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S FIVES STEIN INDIA PROJECTS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 91/KOL/2013[2009-10 & 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

277 (SC) d) CIT vs BM Kharwar reported in 72 ITR 603 (SC) ITA No.91/Kol/2011-C-AM 2 M/s. Fives Stein (I) Projects P.Ltd e) Sir Kikabhai Premchand case reported in 24 ITR 506 (SC) In response to this, the Learned DR vehemently supported the order of the Learned AO. 3.2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1575/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

TDS recoverable written off as under:- (a) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s Shreyans Industries Ltd in ITA No. 277 of 2004 dated 15.11.2013 (b) Delhi Tribunal in the case of Kelly Services India Pvt Ltd vs DIT in iTA No. 5435/Del/2011 dated 16.9.2011 23 ITA Nos.2776/A/2011,1575/K/2011 & 927/K/.2013 Mc Nally Sayaji Engg

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 927/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

TDS recoverable written off as under:- (a) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s Shreyans Industries Ltd in ITA No. 277 of 2004 dated 15.11.2013 (b) Delhi Tribunal in the case of Kelly Services India Pvt Ltd vs DIT in iTA No. 5435/Del/2011 dated 16.9.2011 23 ITA Nos.2776/A/2011,1575/K/2011 & 927/K/.2013 Mc Nally Sayaji Engg

SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

ITA 1377/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

TDS had been for Rs. 1,65,08,496 and advance Taxes of Rs. 20,50,000 had been paid, a sum of Rs.1,19,70,306 was shown as Refundable to the appellant, in the Return. All the Infrastructure projects had to be carried out on the basis of the agreements/contracts entered into with the Statutory Bodies. In each

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RG-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 685/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Senior Counsel
Section 143(3)

277/[2013] 38 taxmann.com 345 (Mum.) The disallowance of the expenditure u/s 14A r.w.r 8D requires proximate relationship with the tax exempt income. The disallowance is simply based on presumptions, surmises and conjectures and should not be sustained. Reliance was placed in this regard on the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1267/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Senior Counsel
Section 143(3)

277/[2013] 38 taxmann.com 345 (Mum.) The disallowance of the expenditure u/s 14A r.w.r 8D requires proximate relationship with the tax exempt income. The disallowance is simply based on presumptions, surmises and conjectures and should not be sustained. Reliance was placed in this regard on the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers

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

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)Section 269S

277,477 11,080,000 4. Ld.AR further drew our attention to page No.37 of the paper book which shows the particulars of loan/deposit taken/repaid during the year. It was the submission that this is apart of the tax audit report representing the details of loan and interest paid and the TDS, the same reads as follows :- Maithan Ceramic Limited

ARSH IRON & STEEL LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 206/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

TDS 2. List of the parties to whom the commission was paid with PAN and their business expertise 3. The services rendered by the commission agents along with the details of sales against which the commission was paid. 4. Details of the nexus between the commission and the business of the assessee. ITA No.206-207/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Arsh

M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1228/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 263

TDS and AO has failed to bring any cogent evidence on record to demonstrate that these documents/evidences are false. Therefore, addition made by the assessing officer needs to be deleted and accordingly we delete the addition of Rs. 5.42 Crores. For the sake of academic discussion, we also note that aforesaid two projects are infrastructure projects specified u/s 80IA

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1211/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 263

TDS and AO has failed to bring any cogent evidence on record to demonstrate that these documents/evidences are false. Therefore, addition made by the assessing officer needs to be deleted and accordingly we delete the addition of Rs. 5.42 Crores. For the sake of academic discussion, we also note that aforesaid two projects are infrastructure projects specified u/s 80IA

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)

277) = 6,827,269.28 viii) The above is the cost allocable to the sites for which installation has been doe but invoice has not been raised and so this can be taken as work in progress for services rendered in the AY 2008-09 in respect of which revenue has been booked in AY 2009-10. ix) a) The figure

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 certificate). In addition to this, AO has summoned some of the parties u/s 131(1) of the Act and recorded their statements. In some cases/persons, the statements have been recorded twice and the AO found it contradictory because the person who gave statement did not have experience of Income Tax Proceedings. The Ld. AR for the assessee also pointed

GOGHAT THANA LARGE SIZED PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-1, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1872/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1872 /Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Goghat Thana Large Sized Primary -Vs- Acit, Circle-1, Hooghly Cooperative Agricultural Marketing Society Ltd. [Pan: Aaalg 0062 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Roy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40A(7)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: 4 5 M/s Goghat Thana

DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2349/KOL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

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

Section 115JSection 139Section 250

section 115JB. 1(b) The Ld.CIT(A) further erred in failing to appreciate that even otherwise no addition could have been made u/s 115JB when the accounts have been audited and approved in the AGM. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in disallowing expense of Rs. 23,57,810/- under the normal provision

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2281/KOL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

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

Section 115JSection 139Section 250

section 115JB. 1(b) The Ld.CIT(A) further erred in failing to appreciate that even otherwise no addition could have been made u/s 115JB when the accounts have been audited and approved in the AGM. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in disallowing expense of Rs. 23,57,810/- under the normal provision

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 622/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee company in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out of fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out of the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the present case, the assessee

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1697/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee company in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out of fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out of the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the present case, the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. E.I.H. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO

ITA 2182/KOL/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, ld.CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS officer to look into the violations, if any, on the same and hence on that ground also, no disallowance of expenditure could be appreciated. We find that the Learned AO had made the entire addition based on surmises and conjectures and made on adhoc basis . It is well founded proposition that what is apparent is real and the allegation

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

277 of PB Vol.-1 and the neither the share capital/share premium nor the investments out of that source were doubted by the AO. 9.2. We also note that similar issue was involved in the case of M/S Swarna Kalash Commercial Pvt Ltd. Vs ACIT ,Central Circle -2(2), Kolkata, a group concern of the Rashmi Group of Companies ,which