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.

205 results for “TDS”+ Section 40A(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi542Mumbai514Chennai264Bangalore236Kolkata205Hyderabad64Jaipur57Ahmedabad55Indore49Raipur39Pune33Chandigarh30Visakhapatnam25Rajkot24Lucknow18Surat18Cuttack17Patna14Guwahati13Jodhpur12Amritsar10Nagpur10Cochin9Karnataka7Agra5Dehradun4Ranchi4Varanasi4Calcutta3Jabalpur3Panaji2Allahabad2SC1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)89Section 4076Addition to Income68Disallowance64Section 80I49Deduction48TDS42Section 40A(3)35Section 40a32Section 115J

M/S MRINALINI BIRI MANUFACTURING CO.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 85/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)Section 40

40A(7) was on deduction in respect of any provision (whether called as such or by any other name) made by the assessee for the payment of gratuity. The amplitude of the section was indicated by the use of the expression 'whether called as such or by any other name'. It was further reiterated that the interpretation suggested on behalf

Showing 1–20 of 205 · Page 1 of 11

...
31
Section 6823
Section 194C23

S. N. CONSTRUCTION,BANKURA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1117/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 1117/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 S.N. Construction -Vs- Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1205/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur -Vs- S.N. Construction [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saikat Maulik, FCAFor Respondent: Gautam Kumar Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act. Ground no. 4 is against the disallowance of Puja expenses, ground no. 5 is against the disallowance of telephone charges and general expenses and ground no. 6 is on the addition of interest earned on TDS. 5. Regarding the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act, the assessee submits that it was, under exceptional

ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. S. N. CONSTRUCTION, BANKURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1205/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 1117/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 S.N. Construction -Vs- Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1205/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur -Vs- S.N. Construction [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saikat Maulik, FCAFor Respondent: Gautam Kumar Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act. Ground no. 4 is against the disallowance of Puja expenses, ground no. 5 is against the disallowance of telephone charges and general expenses and ground no. 6 is on the addition of interest earned on TDS. 5. Regarding the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act, the assessee submits that it was, under exceptional

M/S EXCEL ENGINEERS,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) CIR - 51,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

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

ITA 1588/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subhas Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debnath Lahiri, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

TDS u/s 194C of the Act. Sub-contractor payment of Rs. 21,45,387/- No evidence in support of identity of staff, mode of remittance and documents in support of disbursement was submitted. Entire payments were made to one Prasanna Vaishya. 2.2.1. The assessee filed his rejoinder to the remand report before the ld CITA separately for two expenditures . Labour

DCIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHRADHA AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1362/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1362/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCITFor Respondent: Ankita Manek, ACA
Section 144Section 14ASection 194C(7)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(2)Section 40

TDS, filing of PAN of the Payee- Transporter alone is sufficient and no confirmation letter as required by the learned CIT is required; M/s Shradha Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year:2013-14 v) Sections 194C(6) and Section 194C(7) are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section

A.C.I.T CIR - 2,DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. SRI RAJAN BABU, DURGAPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2196/KOL/2013[2010-11\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2017

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. In the instant case the AO has not brought anything on record by which the said provisions can be attracted to the instant transactions of commission payment. Besides the above, we also find the payment has been made by the assessee to RIL which has been disclosed by the assessee and the party

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS FERRITES LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH M/S. EPCOS INDIA P. LTD.,), NADIA

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed, except other ground no

ITA 1597/KOL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2019AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Smt. Rituparna SinhaFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(7)Section 40A(9)Section 43BSection 80H

40A(9) of the Act. Therefore, we delete the above mentioned additions. That being so we decline to interfere in the order passed by the ld CIT(A), his order on this issue is hereby upheld and grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 27.(ii). Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of provision

RADHEYSHYAM GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: : Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं"या/ I.T.A. No. 187/कोल/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Radheyshyam Gupta...…………............... (अपीलाथ"/Appellant [Pan: Adjpg 3274 G] Vs. Pcit-9, Kolkata........................................(""यथ")/Respondent Appearances By: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Smt. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, Cit, (D/R), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of The Hearing : July 19Th, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : Sept 09Th, 2022 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-9, Kolkata [In Short

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

7 I.T.A. No.: 187/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Radheyshyam Gupta. relied on the impugned order and also submitted that the assessee has submitted the details of purchase at page 36 of the P.B stating that cash of Rs.,3,03,796/- and cash of Rs. 2,24,63,103/- has been paid in cash for purchase of old diamond jewellery

DCIT,CIRCLE-15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S L.G.W. LIMITED, NORTH 24 PARGANAS

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1786/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-15(2), V/S. M/S L.G.W. Ltd., 10, Shantipally, Em Vill. Narayanpur, P.O. Bypass, Aayakar Rajarhat, Gopalpur, 24- Bhawan, Poorva, 6Th Parganas (North), West Floor, R.No.615, Bengal-700136 Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Aaacl 4670 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit- अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Dr Shri A.K. Tibrerwal, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2016, Passed In Case No.47/Cit(A)-5/Cir.14(1)/15-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S First Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing Assessment Findings Disallowing The Taxpayer’S Commission Payments Made To Foreign Export Agents Amounting To ₹257,60,898/- For Non Deduction Of Tds U/S 40(A)(I) As Follows:- “1. Commission To Foreign Agents - Rs.2,57,60,898/- The Ao Has Added Sum Of Rs.2,57,60,898/- By Holding That The Said Amounts Were Paid To Foreign Agents Without Deduction Of Tds U/S.195. The Addition Has Been Made U/S

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

7) is a different default. Such default cannot hold the appellant liable again for deduction of TDS. The AO's action of holding the appellant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to deduct TDS cannot be sustained. Accordingly the application by the AO of Section 40a

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 805/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

7. Large value sale of consideration of property in ITR is less than sale consideration of property reported in TDS return under section 194IA 8. Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR 9. Mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A

M/S RAHEE JHAJHARIA E TO E JV,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed & appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 343/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rahee Jhajharia E To E Jv Flat 1C, 1St Floor Circle-33, Kolkata Vs 4, Ho Chi Minh Sarani Chowringhee Kolkata - 700071 Pan : Aabar5042H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Khemka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kananjia, CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

7. Having carefully examined the orders of authorities below in the light of rival submissions and relevant provisions and various judicial pronouncements, we find that by virtue of the insertion of section 92BA on the statute as per clause (i), any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to person referred

ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAHEE JHAJHARIA E TO E JV, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed & appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1125/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1125/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rahee Jhajharia E To E Jv Flat 1C, 1St Floor Circle-33, Kolkata Vs 4, Ho Chi Minh Sarani Chowringhee Kolkata - 700071 Pan : Aabar5042H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Khemka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kananjia, CIT D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

7. Having carefully examined the orders of authorities below in the light of rival submissions and relevant provisions and various judicial pronouncements, we find that by virtue of the insertion of section 92BA on the statute as per clause (i), any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to person referred

M/S DIVAKAR SOLAR SYSTEM LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

section 40A(2) of the Act cannot be invoked. It was also stated that the total payments made to Mrs 6 Divakar Solar System Ltd., AY 2012-13 Chandana Poddar towards salary and professional fees was only Rs 12 lakhs and not Rs 13 lakhs as claimed by the ld AO. The ld AO observed that the assessee had failed

M/S MITRA GUHA BUILDERS (INDIA) CO.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-33(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA NO.1594/Kol/2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and C

ITA 1558/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Thard, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 201Section 40

section 40A(3) of the Act. On the other ground as it appears that the CIT (Appeal) has been directed ,to reconsider the matter. In view of that we do not think that any substantial question of law is involved in this matter. Hence the appeal being ITA NO. 202 of 2008 is dismissed. 15. The ld. DR relied

ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,JHARKHAND vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1701/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2015AY 2010-2011

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

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

40A(2) is a specific section to handle payment to relatives. Hence the case decisions can be considered in the context of this case. These decision come to rescue of assessee only in respect of payment to Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal and Shri Vinay Kumar Agarwal of Rs.5,00,000/- each. 13. In two of the 6 cases out payment

SRI GOPINATH GHORAI,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 01/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: G.Banerjee, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194Section 194CSection 40

40a(ia) for which the time limit has already has been expired. Where as per the appellant it was the order under section143(3) read with section 147dated 24/12/2010. Whether the issue related to the rectification was the order passed under section 143(3) or the order u/s 143(3) read with section 147 dated 24/12/2010 itself requires explanations. clarifications

SUROVI MANSION JEWELLERS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 12(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1754/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Surovi Mansion V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Ward-12(1), 3, Govt. 195/13B, Rash Behari Place, Avenue, Kolkata-700 Kolkata-700 001 019 [Pan No.Aaics 3050P] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115WSection 143(3)Section 40A(3)

40A(3) of the Act on account of payment exceeding for the purchase of old ornaments exceeding ₹20,000. Accordingly, we reverse the orders of lower authorities and this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. Second issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO by disallowing

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1671/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2016AY 2003-2004

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

Section 40

TDS under section 194 on the reimbursement of salary of seconded I.T.A. Nos. 1671/KOL./2008 & 1024/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 & I.T.A. Nos. 1699/KOL/2008 & 973/KOL/2009 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 Page 10 of 34 employees. Keeping in view these decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Nagase India Pvt. Limited (supra) and Temasek

DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ANDREW YULE & CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 525/KOL/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

TDS Rs.11,40,201/-, interest on sales tax Rs.2,34,898/-, ESI Rs.7,65,351/-, service tax Rs.62,441/-, Gratuity Rs.12,88,395/-, food staff Rs.4,46,542/-, fee Rs.1,07,583/- etc. had accrued only in the AY 2009-10 and not of any earlier assessment year. Therefore, expenses of such nature which though relates to earlier period

MR KRISHAN KUMAR SOMANI,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WD-47(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 751/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

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

Section 194(1)Section 194CSection 194C(1)Section 263Section 40

TDS i.e. the expenditure incurred for advertisement as individual and HUF are specifically excluded in the above provisions. The provision of Sub-Section (2) applies only to payments made to Sub- Contractors and not to Contractors. Accordingly, Assessing Officer can not made disallowance by invoking provisions of Section 40a(ia), as present assessee being an individual is not liable