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.

321 results for “TDS”+ Section 70clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,402Delhi1,327Bangalore699Chennai524Kolkata321Ahmedabad202Hyderabad191Indore178Chandigarh162Cochin154Jaipur148Karnataka126Raipur110Pune81Surat57Cuttack53Lucknow43Rajkot38Visakhapatnam32Ranchi32Nagpur23Guwahati22Jodhpur20Kerala19Patna18Dehradun17Allahabad16Telangana14Varanasi13Agra13Amritsar11Jabalpur4SC3Panaji3Calcutta2Uttarakhand1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)97Section 4066Addition to Income61Section 6849Disallowance49TDS40Deduction34Section 26333Section 14731Section 148

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

TDS) v. United Breweries Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 150 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) wherein it was held that the incentive given to retail dealers would not fall under the category of commission and accordingly the provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable. It may not be out of place that the Assessee in the present case

Showing 1–20 of 321 · Page 1 of 17

...
25
Section 194C23
Section 14A23

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

TDS) v. United Breweries Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 150 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) wherein it was held that the incentive given to retail dealers would not fall under the category of commission and accordingly the provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable. It may not be out of place that the Assessee in the present case

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 is compensatory in nature and therefore the sameis allowable as business expenditure.” 11. Apart from that, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the provisions of section 40(a)(ii), which read as under: “Amount not deductible. 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to [38], the following amounts shall not be deducted

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 253/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.253/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 National Insurance Co. Ltd...................................................................……Appellant 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata- 700071. [Pan: Aaacn9967E] Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds,Ghaziabad, Up...…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 16, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Was Wrong In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Against The Intimation Dated 02/06/2019 Issued U/S 200A For The Financial Year 2018-19 (Relevant For The Assessment Year 2019- 20). 2. That Without Prejudice To The Contention Raised In Ground No. 1 Above, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Was Wrong In Stating In The Appellate Order That The Appeal Of The Appellant Had Allegedly Related

Section 195Section 200ASection 201Section 234ESection 250

70,022 26/04/2019 02/05/2019 45512 4) 36,76,23,998 26/04/2019 02/05/2019 45521 I.T.A No.253/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2019-20 National Insurance Co. Ltd The Authorized Bank, viz., Bank of Baroda informed the appellant subsequent to its actual tender of the TDS, that due to technical issues at the Bank, the TDS amounts could not be remitted by the Bank

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 306/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

70,89,045 under section 36(1)(viia) as referred to in Ground No.1 as above in disregard of the decision of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of Syndicate Bank (78 ITD 103) and solely relying on the CBDT’s Instruction No. 17 of 2008 dated 26.11.2008. 3. That, on facts as well

POREL DASS WATER & EFFLUENT PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 1(4)/ KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2402/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1354/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Addl.CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

70,19,787/-. 7. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with success. Aggrieved, the Revenue as well as assessee are in appeal before us. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The ld counsel for the assessee

ITO, WARD - 13(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. POREL DASS WATER & EFFLUENT CONTROL PVT. LTD., , HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2441/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1354/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Addl.CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

70,19,787/-. 7. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with success. Aggrieved, the Revenue as well as assessee are in appeal before us. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The ld counsel for the assessee

POREL DASS WATER & EFFLUENT CONTROL PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WD-13(3), KOLKATA, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 1354/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1354/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Addl.CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

70,19,787/-. 7. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with success. Aggrieved, the Revenue as well as assessee are in appeal before us. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The ld counsel for the assessee

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 1489/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C

TDS on the payment made by GRSE (i.e. the payer) but did not include the full amount of receipt from GRSE. The treatment given by the assessee in its accounts as well as in computation of its total income was contrary to the provisions of Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 2082/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C

TDS on the payment made by GRSE (i.e. the payer) but did not include the full amount of receipt from GRSE. The treatment given by the assessee in its accounts as well as in computation of its total income was contrary to the provisions of Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount

S R B C & CO. LLP,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 236/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 43B

Section 115BBDA of the Act thereby leading to double taxation of same income; Short grant of TDS credit 3 SRBC & Co. LLP, AY: 2017-18. 6. erred in granting TDS credit of Rs. 8,94,70

ACIT,CIR-2, LTU - 2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 728/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Circle – 2, Ltu, Kolkata.....................................................................................Appellant 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata – 700 107. M/S. Uco Bank……………………………………………………..................................................Respondent 10, Btm Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Aaacu 3561 B] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 728/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Uco Bank……………………………………………………............................................Cross-Objector 10, Btm Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Aaacu 3561 B] A.C.I.T, Circle – 2, Ltu, Kolkata.................................................................................Respondent 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri D.S. Damle, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 10, 20219 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 17Th , 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 23, Kolkata Dated 29.01.2019 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 19/Kol/2019. 2. In The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue, The Following Grounds Are Raised:

Section 10(15)Section 201Section 40

70 lists out all kinds of amounts and income which are not taxable. Section 10(15)(iv) to the extent it is relevant reads as follows: “(I) Interest payable – (h) by any public sector company in respect of such bonds or debentures and subject to such conditions including the condition that the "holder of such bonds or debentures register

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

section 37. For this conclusion, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Limited –vs.- CIT [66 ITR 710], wherein it was held that in a case, where the productive unit set up by the asessee remained the same but a part of it, which has become

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

section 37. For this conclusion, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Limited –vs.- CIT [66 ITR 710], wherein it was held that in a case, where the productive unit set up by the asessee remained the same but a part of it, which has become

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (IT) - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 505/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43D

70 to 80 and not falling within the manner of computation of business income in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30to 43D. Be it stated here that income from profit and gain from business or profession are to be computed in accordance with the provision contained 20 M/s Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. A.Yr. 2011-12 in section

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 503/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43D

70 to 80 and not falling within the manner of computation of business income in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30to 43D. Be it stated here that income from profit and gain from business or profession are to be computed in accordance with the provision contained 20 M/s Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. A.Yr. 2011-12 in section

OSD, COKE (CONSORTIUM) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.O., CIR. 5(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 1442/KOL/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1442/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Anikesh Banerjee & Sri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 199Section 199(3)Section 250Section 37B

70,795/- and related TDS was Rs. 45,29,415/-. But the same TDS is not reflected in Form-26AS because the party had not debited this amount in their books. Ld. AO had not allowed this TDS credit in this year against the assessee and the order was passed. Ld. AO had relied on the order of the Coordinate

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD., KALYANI

In the result, both appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1895/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

TDS before making the payment under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. My attention was invited to the fact that the appellant has offered discounts to the customers as per the contract of sale entered into between the appellant and the customers taken place on a principal to principal basis. Further, my attention is also drawn to the decision

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD., KALYANI

In the result, both appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2758/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2009-2010

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

TDS before making the payment under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. My attention was invited to the fact that the appellant has offered discounts to the customers as per the contract of sale entered into between the appellant and the customers taken place on a principal to principal basis. Further, my attention is also drawn to the decision

RICKY CHANDRA,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA - X, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 668/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2009-2010

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

TDS before making the payment under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. My attention was invited to the fact that the appellant has offered discounts to the customers as per the contract of sale entered into between the appellant and the customers taken place on a principal to principal basis. Further, my attention is also drawn to the decision