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.

235 results for “TDS”+ Section 94(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,083Delhi1,063Bangalore462Chennai437Kolkata235Hyderabad203Indore181Ahmedabad152Karnataka129Raipur101Jaipur99Chandigarh65Cochin60Pune55Surat37Visakhapatnam36Lucknow32Rajkot26Jodhpur21Nagpur19Kerala17Cuttack12Patna12Guwahati10Telangana10Dehradun8Allahabad6Ranchi5SC4Calcutta3Agra2Jabalpur2Amritsar2Gauhati1Panaji1Varanasi1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 234E80Section 143(3)75Section 14A56Addition to Income54Disallowance43Section 200A40Deduction38TDS38Section 25033Section 68

PASSPORT JEANS PVT LTD ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 575/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 200ASection 234E

94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub- section (3) of section 176; or (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 420/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021

Showing 1–20 of 235 · Page 1 of 12

...
33
Section 115J25
Section 4022
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 417/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 422/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 415/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 419/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 418/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 416/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 421/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B

SUKUMAR SOLVENT PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1446/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Sukumar Solvent Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-2, Burdwan Gopalpur, Sagrai, Purba Vs. Burdwan-713424. Pan: Aajcs 2085 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Suvo Chakraborty, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) - Burdwan Dated 11.03.2019 Arising Out Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Relevant To Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That Estimation & Confirmation Of Higher G.P. On Unaccounted Sales By The Appellate Authority Is Baseless & On Surmise Since Appellant Actual Audited G.P. Rate Is Lower.

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

94,245/- and partly allowed ground no. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee. Therefore, the impugned addition made by the ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside in terms of our observation made above. 7. Ground no. 6 raised by the assessee regarding the confirmation of TDS addition on freight charges as the assessee being aggrieved by the order

WEST BENGAL INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-6(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 564/KOL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14A

94(7) and explanation below section 73 are not applicable to the company. We shall be pleased to offer any other particulars if required by you. Enclo: As above. Yours faithfully, FA & CAO, WBIDFC Pages No. 110-111:- A.K. Sen & associates Chartered Accountants 16.12.2010 The ld. DCIT, Circle-6/Kolkatqa, Aayakar Bhawan, 6t h Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata

BOC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

ITA 806/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/Shri Girish Dave, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT/ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS] in terms of provisions of section 40(a(ia) of the Act for which show cause notice was issued to the assessee. In response to the show cause notice the assessee replied that this amount represents advances made for import of capital goods, which is outstanding as on 31-03-2007. Such advances were made towards purchase/import of capital

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

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

94,70,175 as against TDS credit of Rs.14,74,78,853 as claimed in Revised Return of Income, thereby granting short credit of TDS of Rs. 5,80,08,678; Levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act 7

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. 3 GUYS, HOWRAH

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1670/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(3)

7% of TDS Rs.20,18,902/-], even though in the said period tax was not deducted and not paid to the Government. The Appellant also failed to lodge claim in terms of Rule 37BA( 4) in Assessment Year 2007-0S as TDS certificates [Form 16A] and deductors' information to ITA No.1670/Kol/2014 A.Y.2008-09 DCIT

ITO, WD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN, KOLKATA

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

ITA 593/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Ito(E), Wd-1(3), Kolkata Vs. The Institute Of Indian Foundrymen 6Th Floor, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata Iif Center, 335, Rajdanga Main – 700 071. Road, East Kolkata Township, P.O. Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt 6606 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Smt. Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)

section required to be credited on accrual basis. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee ignoring the fact that TDS of Rs.4,94,685/- was claimed in the return of income while the income on such TDS was not credited in the I/E accounts as required

M/S INDUSTRIAL PERFORATION INDIA (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WD - 5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 413/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2016AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M Das, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 194JSection 200Section 234BSection 40

7. A plain reading of this Section makes it clear that "any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and a specified person" is required to deduct

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1199/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Barun Kumar Ghosh & Shri Piyush Dey, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 40(a)(ia), the Assessee is able to produce the necessary challans in respect of amount of expenditure of Rs. 96,38,368/-. The Assessee was however unable to produce the TDS challans in respect of payment of Rs. 2,20,94,366 ( Rs. 3,17,32,734 - Rs. 96,38,368). 29. The CIT(A) allowed claim

WELKIN TELECOM INFRA PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rjesh Kumar, Am ]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

7. In the Mittal Steel case (supra), the proviso to s. 201 was under consideration. The said proviso empowers levy of penalty if the TDS deduction is not effected for any valid reason. However, s.201(1A) is a distinct provision to levy interest for delayed remittance. It is in the practice of Revenue that for belated payment