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.

317 results for “TDS”+ Section 58(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,482Mumbai1,432Bangalore683Chennai476Kolkata317Hyderabad215Ahmedabad200Indore165Raipur163Cochin154Jaipur151Karnataka148Chandigarh126Pune69Lucknow57Visakhapatnam56Surat45Cuttack37Ranchi29Rajkot23Dehradun19Agra16Nagpur15Guwahati13Telangana13Patna13Allahabad10Amritsar9Varanasi8SC7Jabalpur5Panaji4Calcutta4Jodhpur3Uttarakhand2Punjab & Haryana2Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)89Section 4073Deduction53Disallowance48Addition to Income47TDS45Section 6833Section 115J33Section 26332Section 14A

DCIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX SOMDATT BUILDERS J.V., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 155/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

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

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 4Section 80I

58,28,400/- by AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IA of the Act, in view of the Explanation to the said section 80IA, introduced by the Finance Act (No.2), 2009 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2000. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who relying on the order

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 317 · Page 1 of 16

...
26
Section 25025
Section 14725
ITA 431/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 673/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 377/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 356/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 343/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 482/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 485/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 357/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

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)

TDS), Ward 58(4), Kolkata Pvt. Ltd (Cross objector/assessee) (Department) For the Appellant/department: Shri Tanuj Kr. Neogi, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR For the Respondent/assessee: Shri Rajaram Choudhury, CA, ld.AR Date of Hearing: 22-04-2016 Date of Pronouncement: 11 -5 -2016 ORDER SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM This appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee arise out of the order

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 606/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2

58,898/- Rule 8D(2)(i) 0.5% of average value of investments Rs.8,72,853/- TOTAL Rs.19,10,251/- Less: Amount suo moto disallowed by the assessee Rs. 77,500/- Rs.18,32,751/- 32. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who gave relief to the assessee by holding as under: “The Assessing Officer, in paragraph

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1947/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 28

4,56,716/- Secondary Scheme-Kind 5212 1,44,01,732/- Secondary Scheme-Non Kind 5212 8,14,23,721/- Total 10,26,18,968/- 6.2.2. It is also observed that the assessee during the TDS assessment proceedings, had affirmed the issue that the alleged Credit Notes were issued Page 6 of 22 I.T.A. Nos.: 1925 & 1947/KOL/2024 Assessment Year

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1925/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 28

4,56,716/- Secondary Scheme-Kind 5212 1,44,01,732/- Secondary Scheme-Non Kind 5212 8,14,23,721/- Total 10,26,18,968/- 6.2.2. It is also observed that the assessee during the TDS assessment proceedings, had affirmed the issue that the alleged Credit Notes were issued Page 6 of 22 I.T.A. Nos.: 1925 & 1947/KOL/2024 Assessment Year

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

ITA 974/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the Ld. AO\nis directed to delete the addition in the event of the assessee filing\nevidence for payment of tax on this amount by the payees or furnishing\nthe copy of the agreement, which shall be examined by the AO for\ndeleting the addition as per law. Hence, this ground of appeal

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D,C,I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 975/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the Ld. AO is directed to delete the addition in the event of the assessee filing evidence for payment of tax on this amount by the payees or furnishing the copy of the agreement, which shall be examined by the AO for deleting the addition as per law. Hence, this ground of appeal

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2079/KOL/2014[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)

section 195 of the Act for issuing NIL tax withholding Certificate. This application was rejected by the Assessing Officer as well as by the learned CIT(A). It was in these circumstances that the learned Delhi Bench of the Tribunal upheld the claim of the Revenue that it was for the Assessing Officer to determine what portion of the payments

ITO(TDS),WD-58(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEJRIWAL., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 249/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: None appeared
Section 133ASection 206CSection 206C(1)Section 206C(6)

TDS) Ward 58(4) (Cross Objector/assessee) (Department) For the Appellant/department: None appeared For the cross objector/assessee: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA, ld.AR Date of Hearing: 30-03-2016 Date of Pronouncement: 6-4 -2016 ORDER SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM These appeals of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee arise out of the consolidated order of the Learned CIT(A)-I, Kolkata

M/S SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 665/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

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

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr
Section 143(3)Section 80I

4. For that in view of the facts and circumstances the AO is wholly unjustified in disallowing Rs.7,42,03,845/- being 50% of the interest paid on estimate and on suspicions and surmises and the CIT(A) is wholly unjustified to confirm the disallowance to the extent of Rs.2,18,70,815/- and in view of the facts

I.T.O WD - 56(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE, KOLKATA

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

ITA 581/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

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

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr
Section 143(3)Section 80I

4. For that in view of the facts and circumstances the AO is wholly unjustified in disallowing Rs.7,42,03,845/- being 50% of the interest paid on estimate and on suspicions and surmises and the CIT(A) is wholly unjustified to confirm the disallowance to the extent of Rs.2,18,70,815/- and in view of the facts

M/S SALARPURIA SOFT ZONE,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 666/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr
Section 143(3)Section 80I

4. For that in view of the facts and circumstances the AO is wholly unjustified in disallowing Rs.7,42,03,845/- being 50% of the interest paid on estimate and on suspicions and surmises and the CIT(A) is wholly unjustified to confirm the disallowance to the extent of Rs.2,18,70,815/- and in view of the facts