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.

293 results for “TDS”+ Section 91clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,219Mumbai1,142Bangalore527Chennai377Kolkata293Hyderabad169Indore167Ahmedabad147Jaipur127Karnataka119Chandigarh110Cochin69Pune63Raipur48Surat45Cuttack36Visakhapatnam35Rajkot31Lucknow29Nagpur26Guwahati22Jodhpur22Ranchi21Kerala18Patna18Agra16Telangana11Varanasi8Allahabad6Jabalpur6Dehradun6Amritsar5SC2Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 4072Section 143(3)70TDS56Addition to Income53Deduction43Disallowance40Section 194C26Section 20124Section 201(1)22Section 147

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

TDS), Range-6,\nSiliguri\n(Respondent)\nVs.\nPAN: AAAAR6191E\nAppearances:\nAssessee represented by\nDepartment represented by\nDate of concluding the hearing\nDate of pronouncing the order\n: N.C. Mondal, AR.\n: Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr. DR.\n: 27-November-2025\n: 11-February-2026\nORDER\nPER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:\nThese appeals filed by the assessee are against

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE - 6, SILIGURI

Showing 1–20 of 293 · Page 1 of 15

...
21
Section 14A19
Section 25015
ITA 2237/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
11 Feb 2026
AY 2013-2014
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

TDS), Range-6,\nSiliguri\n(Appellant)\nVs.\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AAAAR6191E\nAppearances:\nAssessee represented by : N.C. Mondal, AR.\nDepartment represented by : Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr. DR.\nDate of concluding the hearing : 27-November-2025\nDate of pronouncing the order : 11-February-2026\nORDER\nPER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:\nThese appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders

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

TDS), Range-6, Bank Ltd. Vs. Siliguri (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAAAR6191E Appearances: Assessee represented by : N.C. Mondal, AR. Department represented by : Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 27-November-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 11-February-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders

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)

Section 40a(ia) 16,91,03,135/-. The AO noted that the appellant claimed expenditure on freight and transportation of Rs.16,91,03,135/- and did not effect TDS

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 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

RANJANA ROY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.WD - 42(3),KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194J

91,026/- was liable to TDS provisions under section 194-J of the Act as the payment was exceeding Rs. 20,000/-. But the assessee

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 return under section 194IA was one of the criteria for selection of the case in scrutiny. The same was not properly verified by the A.O. (e) It is further seen that write off of fixed asset of Rs. 42,93,049/- as per clause 21(a) of TAR was not added back by the A.O during the course

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

TDS details were not submitted before AO as these were not procured from the branches. He further submitted that the documents now have been collected and accordingly requested the Bench to restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Ld. DR, on the other hand, agreed to the submission of the AR. 21. We have

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1428/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2016AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Podder, Senior Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

TDS u/s. 194J of the Act on various payments thereby invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. For this, revenue has raised following ground no.1 in AY 2006-07: “1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Kolkata has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.111,91

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1398/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Podder, Senior Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

TDS u/s. 194J of the Act on various payments thereby invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. For this, revenue has raised following ground no.1 in AY 2006-07: “1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Kolkata has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.111,91

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1397/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Podder, Senior Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

TDS u/s. 194J of the Act on various payments thereby invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. For this, revenue has raised following ground no.1 in AY 2006-07: “1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Kolkata has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.111,91

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

AT & S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. DCIT-RANGE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s is allowed

ITA 2305/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 40Section 90(2)

91 (Bang.)-Samsusng Electronics Co. Ltd.-vs.- ITO (TDS). 2.3 The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the orders f the authorities below. He submitted that the assessee has utilized the services being provided by various service provider companies. The assessee made the payments for such services utilized by it. Therefore, in effect, the payment was made

D.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AT & S INDIA PVT LTD, KARNATAKA

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s is allowed

ITA 1160/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 40Section 90(2)

91 (Bang.)-Samsusng Electronics Co. Ltd.-vs.- ITO (TDS). 2.3 The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the orders f the authorities below. He submitted that the assessee has utilized the services being provided by various service provider companies. The assessee made the payments for such services utilized by it. Therefore, in effect, the payment was made

D.C.I.T. CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S FIVES STEIN INDIA PROJECTS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 91/KOL/2013[2009-10 & 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

section 194C of the Act would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.1. The brief facts of this issue is that the assesse claimed purchase of project materials of Rs. 60,85,03,187/- which includes a sum of Rs. 20,91,62,853/- incurred by the assessee towards upply of manufactured goods by the vendors

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1144/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Amit Agarwal, AR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)Section 9(2)Section 91

TDS thereupon. Its case before the Assessing Officer was that neither the said payees has rendered any services in India nor had they set up their permanent establishment in India so as to attract section 91

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1145/KOL/2015[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Amit Agarwal, AR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)Section 9(2)Section 91

TDS thereupon. Its case before the Assessing Officer was that neither the said payees has rendered any services in India nor had they set up their permanent establishment in India so as to attract section 91

ELLENBARRIE INDUSTRIAL GASES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed, and ground

ITA 1687/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1687/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ellenbarrie Industrial Gases Vs. Ito, Ward-8(2), Kolkata Ltd. 34, Ripon Street, Kolkata – 700016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaace 5770 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri A.K. Bandyopadhyay, Fca Respondent By :Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-16, Kolkata, In Appeal No.352/Cit(A)-16/Kol/2014-15/W-8(2), Dated 13.07.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S154/143(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 16-04-2009. 2.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Lncome Tax (Appeals)- 16, To The Extent That He Has Confirmed The Order Of Ld. Lncome Tax Officer Ward 8(2) Kolkata, Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Lncome Tax (Appeals)-16 Had Ignored The Fact That Assessed Tax For The Purpose Of Section 234B & 234C Of The Lncome Tax Act 1961 Was Computed Without Considering Available Mat Credit Of Rs.12,91,616/-Upto The Assessment Year 2006-2007. Computation Of Lnterest Under Section 234B & 234C Was Not Made In Accordance With Explanation 1(V) To Sub-Section (1) Of Section 234B & 234C Of Lncome Tax Act 1961;

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 234B

91,616/- should be allowed from the ‘assessed tax, and thereafter the interest under section 234B and C should be computed. Whereas the AO computed the interest under section 234B and C without considering MAT credit. Apart from this, in computation of ‘assesses tax’ the AO considered TDS

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

91,600 Complex 711409 5. Radhika Steel Kona, Benara Road, 0 22,54,360 0 22,54,360 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