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.

6 results for “TDS”+ Section 35Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai78Delhi58Chennai39Raipur17Ahmedabad10Hyderabad8Rajkot6Kolkata6Bangalore4Visakhapatnam2Cuttack2Karnataka1Nagpur1Jaipur1Dehradun1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 316Disallowance5Section 35D4Deduction4Addition to Income4Section 115J3Section 143(3)3Depreciation3Section 402Section 194C

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 75/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.75/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) United Bank Of India Vs. Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata. 16, Old Court House Street, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu5624P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.06.2017 Passed In Case No.06/Cit(A)-23/L.T.U-1/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. 2. The Assessee’S First Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Club Entrance Fees Of Rs.97,794/- In The Course Of Assessment Affirmed In The Lower In The Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Assessee Herein Is Admittedly A Bank Which Claimed The Impugned Expenditure As An Allowable Deduction Under Revenue Head. The Assessing Officer’S Assessment Order Dated 25.02.2015 Held The Same To Be Capital Expenditure Than Revenue In Nature. The Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 35D
2
Section 37(1)2
Section 322
Section 35D(1)(ii)
Section 35D(2)(c)

35D disallowance of Rs.120,00,000/- in both these assessment years are upheld therefore. We adopt the above detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis and accept the assessee’s contention seeking impugned amortization. 6. Learned CIT-DR at this stage invited our attention to para 5 in the assessment order that the assessee did not identify the share issue expenses. He fails

DCIT/ACIT, LTU-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 806/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, Ltu-1, Kolkata........................................................................................Appellant 6Th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. M/S. United Bank Of India……………………………………………………............................Respondent 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aaacu 5624 P] C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 806/Kol/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. United Bank Of India…………………………………………………….......................Cross-Objector 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aaacu 5624 P] D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, Ltu-1, Kolkata....................................................................................Respondent 6Th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Shri I. Jamir, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 17, Kolkata Dated 22.12.2016 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In Its Appeal Read As Under:

Section 115JSection 1ISection 2(5)Section 211

Section 14A Rule 8D is not applicable in respect of interest expenses made by the assessee.’ 10.2. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. AO. In response to this, the Learned AR vehemently relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 10.3. We have heard the rival submissions and find that the assessee bank

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA 2584/KOL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

TDS written off' of Rs. 73,143/­, 'Travelling & Conveyance' of Rs.13,33,954/­ and 'Personal expenses' of Rs.56,000/­. 6. Having carefully considered the matter, I find that the Ld. A.O was unjustified in taking a view that the business of the assessee had not commenced, when he himself has recorded about the agreement entered by the appellant with

ADDL.CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA vs. OSD COKE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1874/KOL/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri P. B. Pramanik, JCITFor Respondent: S/Shri J. P. Khaitan & J. M. Thard, Advocates
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 31Section 32Section 37(1)

35D of the Act. We find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in allowing this claim of assessee. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 11. The next issue in ITA No. 1874/K/2008 for AY 2005-06 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) setting aside the issue to the file

ITO, WARD - 7(2), KOLKATA vs. OSD COKE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1873/KOL/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri P. B. Pramanik, JCITFor Respondent: S/Shri J. P. Khaitan & J. M. Thard, Advocates
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 31Section 32Section 37(1)

35D of the Act. We find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in allowing this claim of assessee. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 11. The next issue in ITA No. 1874/K/2008 for AY 2005-06 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) setting aside the issue to the file

M/S BRAHMDEO SINHA & CO. HARDCOKE (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1032/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 194CSection 40

TDS as laid down in the act. The fact that the identity of the payees are not established cannot lead to a conclusion that the payments made by the assessee were above the limits which requires deduction of tax at source. The genuineness of the expenses and the practice prevalent in the trade has not been disputed by the revenue