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.

1,202 results for “TDS”+ Section 10(100)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,233Mumbai1,202Bangalore658Chennai421Kolkata269Hyderabad200Indore181Ahmedabad160Chandigarh155Karnataka135Jaipur130Pune112Raipur83Cochin66Cuttack44Surat42Visakhapatnam36Lucknow32Jabalpur26Amritsar23Nagpur22Rajkot19Guwahati18Telangana17Jodhpur16Agra14Dehradun14Patna14Panaji8Ranchi6SC6Varanasi5Rajasthan3Allahabad3Uttarakhand2Orissa1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)71Addition to Income71Disallowance54Section 14A48Section 4044Deduction31TDS29Section 115J26Section 26319Section 68

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) TDS 3, MUMBAI

ITA 3726/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2016AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Smt. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan-DR
Section 10(34)Section 115Section 195Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(d)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)

10(34) of the Act, any income by way of dividend referred to in section 115-O of the Act does not form part of total income in the hands of the recipient and company declaring dividend will be in default as per section 115Q.So,the provisions of TDs would not be applicable for dividend covered under section

Showing 1–20 of 1,202 · Page 1 of 61

...
19
Penalty18
Transfer Pricing15

KORN FERRY INTERNATIONAL P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 6468/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Ms. Priyanka –(AR)For Respondent: Ms. Radha K. Narang
Section 14ASection 254(1)

10(34) of the Act, any income by way of dividend referred to in section 115-O of the Act does not form part of total income in the hands of the recipient and company declaring dividend will be in default as per section 115Q.So,the provisions of TDs would not be applicable for dividend covered under section

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5904/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

100% exemption or deduction under Section 10-A of the Act in respect of the interest income earned by it on the deposits made by it with the Banks in the ordinary course of its business and also interest earned by it from the staff loans and such interest income would not be taxable as „Income from other Sources‟ under

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

ITA 5199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

100% exemption or deduction under Section 10-A of the Act in respect of the interest income earned by it on the deposits made by it with the Banks in the ordinary course of its business and also interest earned by it from the staff loans and such interest income would not be taxable as „Income from other Sources‟ under

JARDINE LLOYD THOMPOSN INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT15(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6313/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

100% exemption or deduction under Section 10-A of the Act in respect of the interest income earned by it on the deposits made by it with the Banks in the ordinary course of its business and also inter earned by it from the staff loans and such interest income would not be taxable as 'Income from other Sources' under

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5069/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

TDS details, return of income copies, address etc. produced by the\nassessee.\n3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in\nconfirming the addition of Rs. 9,59,295/- on the basis of the remand report from Ld.\nAssessing Officer which deviates from the principle of Natural Justice\n4. On facts

M/S. BANK OF AMERICAN , N.A,MUMBAI vs. THE JT DIT (I.T)3, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4154/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

100,000,000\nDabhol Power Company 12-May-97\n81,000,000\nLtd.\n10-Jun-97\n20,000,000\n11-

THE DY DIT (I.T) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., MUMBAI

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

ITA 4090/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

100,000,000\nDabhol Power Company 12-May-97\n81,000,000\nLtd.\n10-Jun-97\n20,000,000\n11-

CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9TDS) - CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3285/MUM/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Jintendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip
Section 194ISection 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements, unlike the provisions contained under section 273B of the Act, there is no question of either waiving the late filing of fee under section 234E of the Act or restricting it to a single challan–cum–statement. 8. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to give benefit on whole deposit of Rs

ITA 5067/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal- A.Y.2007-08 - A.Y.2008-09 - A.Y.2009-10 - A.Y.2010-11 - A.Y.2011-12 - A.Y.2012-13

For Appellant: Shri ChandrasekharFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair – (SR DR)

TDS details, return of income copies, address etc. produced by the assessee. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,59,295/- on the basis of the remand report from Ld. Assessing Officer which deviates from the principle of Natural Justice Mrs. JYOTI AJIT

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5070/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri ChandrasekharFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair – (SR DR)

TDS details, return of income copies, address etc. produced by the\nassessee.\n3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in\nconfirming the addition of Rs. 9,59,295/- on the basis of the remand report from Ld.\nAssessing Officer which deviates from the principle of Natural Justice\n4. On facts

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3711/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 6847/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7214/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7213/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7212/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 6848/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7211/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7210/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 1144/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

TDS Section 194A – Interest on loans 4,12,416 Nil 10,686 Section 194C Contractor 78,06,579 Nil 78,06,579 Section 194J – Supervision Charges 2,55,100