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.

346 results for “TDS”+ Section 54clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,742Mumbai1,560Bangalore733Chennai479Kolkata346Hyderabad213Ahmedabad208Pune193Indore180Cochin170Karnataka157Chandigarh153Raipur143Jaipur142Visakhapatnam65Nagpur53Lucknow52Cuttack44Surat43Rajkot37Dehradun34Ranchi34Agra24Amritsar22Jodhpur21Panaji15Allahabad14Patna13Telangana13Guwahati12SC7Kerala6Jabalpur5Varanasi5Uttarakhand2Calcutta1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)83Section 4079Addition to Income59Disallowance51Deduction41TDS40Section 25033Section 80I31Section 14728Section 148

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

54. Expansion of scope of the provisions of section 194C. 54.1 The existing provisions of sub-section (1) of section 194C provided for deduction of income-tax at source from any sum credited or paid to the resident contractor for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between

DEBJYOTI MISHRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 346 · Page 1 of 18

...
25
Section 143(2)24
Section 26324

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

ITA 1411/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghyas Uddin, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234ASection 40

54. Expansion of scope of the provisions of section 194C. 54.1 The existing provisions of sub-section (1) of section 194C provided for deduction of income-tax at source from any sum credited or paid to the resident contractor for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between

A.C.I.T(TDS) CIR - 57,KOL, KOLKATA vs. M/S HERITAGE HEALTH TPA (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1761/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 194JSection 254

54 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue in ITA No.1760-1762/Kol/2012. The Revenue has filed affidavit in this regard stating the reasons that the delay has occurred due to official scrutiny and arranging related papers for filing the appeal. Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that considering the delay he should not be having any objection to the Bench

HERIGAGE HEALTH TPA(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(TDS), CIRCLE -57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1156/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 194JSection 254

54 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue in ITA No.1760-1762/Kol/2012. The Revenue has filed affidavit in this regard stating the reasons that the delay has occurred due to official scrutiny and arranging related papers for filing the appeal. Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that considering the delay he should not be having any objection to the Bench

M/S HERITAGE HEALTH TPA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1140/KOL/2016[10-Sep]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 194JSection 254

54 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue in ITA No.1760-1762/Kol/2012. The Revenue has filed affidavit in this regard stating the reasons that the delay has occurred due to official scrutiny and arranging related papers for filing the appeal. Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that considering the delay he should not be having any objection to the Bench

M/S HERITAGE HEALTH TPA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1139/KOL/2016[09-Aug]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 194JSection 254

54 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue in ITA No.1760-1762/Kol/2012. The Revenue has filed affidavit in this regard stating the reasons that the delay has occurred due to official scrutiny and arranging related papers for filing the appeal. Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that considering the delay he should not be having any objection to the Bench

M/S HERITAGE HEALTH TPA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-57(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 643/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 194JSection 254

54 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue in ITA No.1760-1762/Kol/2012. The Revenue has filed affidavit in this regard stating the reasons that the delay has occurred due to official scrutiny and arranging related papers for filing the appeal. Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that considering the delay he should not be having any objection to the Bench

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

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 387/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

TDS which was not deposited within the stipulated time after deducting tax I.T.A. No.387/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Premier Irrigation Adritec (P) Ltd from the salaries paid to the employees. The assessing officer disallowed the claim on the grounds that income tax being a disallowable item, interest thereon could not be allowed and that the interest

ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ANS LEATHER COMPANY, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1071/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1071/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata Vs. Ans Leather Company

For Appellant: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(Sr. DR)For Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 172Section 40

54,400/- 6.Hasibur 16,48,200/- 1,48,200/- 15,00,000/- Rahman 7. Md. Naushad 16,72,835/- 1,72,835/- 15,00,000/- The assessee claimed to have purchased Raw Hide & Skin from the above parties. In the case at Sl.No.2, Md. Akeel Ahmed, there is no transaction during the year and Rs.14,84,385/- was outstanding

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

TDS certificate issued in Form 16B by the purchaser of the packet tea factory. The ld. AR therefore submitted that it was factually incorrect on the Ld. Pr. CIT’s part to hold that the AO had 27 Eveready Industries India Ltd, AY- 2014-15 not conducted any enquiry with reference to CASS reason before completion of assessment

ACIT, CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. APEX ENTERPRISES (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 286/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri Rabin Choudhury, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. S. Damle, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 73

Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code , interest could not accrue during the pendency of the suit because award of interest was at the discretion of the Court. During the Financial Year 2002-03, M/s Shaw Wallace & Co Ltd had suo moto deducted and paid tax of Rs. 11,44,726/- on amount of Rs. 54,06,301/- and issued TDS

SRI SUTANU MAHANTY,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-53, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 302/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194ISection 196Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This ground is not allowed.” Being Aggrieved by the impugned order of Ld CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 80 and submitted that books were not produced during remand proceeding

ITO(TDS),WD-58(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PACEMAN SALES PROMOTION PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1296/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rajaram Choudhury, CA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Tanuj Kr. Neogi, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

section 194C in respect of contracts with above companies. Assessee had relied upon the CBDT Circular No. 681 to support its contention. Assessee further produced a certificate and evidence of filing of income tax return from M/s Enercon India Ltd and further relied upon judgement of Supreme Court in 293 ITR 226 in support of its contention. Keeping in view

ACHHELAL YADAV,DANKUNI vs. ITO, WARD-23(1),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 844/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 844/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Achhelal Yadav Income Tax Officer, Ward- 23(1), G/4/3, Phase-Ii, Dankuni Housing Vs Hooghly Complex P.O. Dankuni West Bengal - 712331 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 17/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ao Passed U/S 154 When In Fact The Entire Sold Lands Were Rural Agriculture Lands & Thus The Said Lands Do Not Come Under The Purview Of The Definition Of Capital Asset As Provided Under Section 2(14)(Iii) & Thus The Entire Calculation Of Capital Gain On Sale Of Rural Agriculture Land Was Illegal, Wrong & Without Any Sanction Of Law. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao By Invoking The Provision Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Since The Mistake, Which Was Sought To Be Rectified By The Ao, Was Not A Mistake Apparent From The Record As Prescribed Under Section 154. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 154Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

TDS was allowed for an unknown reason. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the view that the exemption was originally allowed u/s 54F and therefore the assessment is to be rectified when no exemption u/s 54F was claimed or allowed. 7. For that the order is otherwise bad in law since two opinions were possible

SRI MANINDRA MOHAN MAZUMDAR,BURDWAN vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

ITA 2201/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2201/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Manindra Mohan Vs. J.C.I.T, Range-1, Asansol Mazumdar Sahana Apartment Mother Teressa 19, Radhangar Road, Burnpur- 713325, Road, Lower Chelidanga, Asansol – Dist- Burdwan. 713304. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aelpm 0074 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14A

TDS credit to the tune of Rs.60,004/- on mobilization advance and not entire contract receipts were received in the relevant Assessment Year. 3. Now, we shall take first grievance of the assessee, which relatesto disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 14A read with rule 8D to the tune of Rs.3

SHALIMAR FABRICATORS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 is allowed and the appeal for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed

ITA 386/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 23ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43BSection 44A

54,728/- under Section 234B and Rs.98,243/- under Section 234C. 2 I.T.A. Nos.: 386 & 428/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shalimar Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. 3. That the assessee craves leave to alter/amend any grounds of appeal and to take additional grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Assessment Year 2018-19: “1. That

SHALIMAR FABRICATORS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 is allowed and the appeal for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed

ITA 428/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 23ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43BSection 44A

54,728/- under Section 234B and Rs.98,243/- under Section 234C. 2 I.T.A. Nos.: 386 & 428/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shalimar Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. 3. That the assessee craves leave to alter/amend any grounds of appeal and to take additional grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Assessment Year 2018-19: “1. That

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S. SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1627/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Debasish Roy, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Sarana, FCA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

54,360 Syndicate Howrah-711114 6. Sangeet Rahini 62, Bentinck St., 0 9,10,000 0 9,10,000 Corporation Kolkata-69 7. Seema Enterprise 62, Bentinck St., 0 13,52,000 0 13,52,000 Kolkata-700069. The AO required the assessee to file the details of purchases and also established the identity of the creditors and genuineness

SHANKAR ROADWAYS,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR. 1(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 703/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40

TDS deduction in view of sub-section (6) of section 194C of the Act, as they were not owning more than ten goods carriage during the relevant financial year. We find that the aforesaid issues were duly explained by the assessee not only before the AO, but also, before the ld. Pr. CIT. However, the Ld. Pr. CIT without examining