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.

2,688 results for “TDS”+ Section 2(22)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,688Delhi2,153Bangalore1,462Chennai1,057Kolkata565Indore550Ahmedabad475Hyderabad438Pune325Cochin304Jaipur227Visakhapatnam200Chandigarh194Raipur177Karnataka171Patna168Cuttack151Surat129Nagpur110Rajkot87Lucknow87Ranchi72Allahabad43Jodhpur31Guwahati31Dehradun28Agra27Amritsar25Jabalpur19SC14Telangana12Varanasi11Kerala9Panaji6Orissa2Gauhati1Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1J&K1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)68Section 4056Addition to Income44TDS42Deduction36Disallowance36Section 153A25Section 14822Section 26322Section 14A

ITO - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MULTIVENTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

2(22)(e) of the Act. Since the facts in the present case are similar to one as decided by us in ITA No.3717/M/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 in ground Nos.4 to 6 wherein we have upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. Therefore, our finding in ground Nos.4 to 6 of ITA No.3717/M/2019

M/S MULTIVENTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3 (2)(2), MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 2,688 · Page 1 of 135

...
20
Section 153C17
Section 25015

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4882/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

2(22)(e) of the Act. Since the facts in the present case are similar to one as decided by us in ITA No.3717/M/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 in ground Nos.4 to 6 wherein we have upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. Therefore, our finding in ground Nos.4 to 6 of ITA No.3717/M/2019

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

ITA 4162/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 2(11)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253(3)Section 254(1)

22)(e). To support his submission, the ld.AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision: ⮚ DCIT v. Ashok D. Jain [ITA No. 4505/Mum/2013] dated 27.04.2018 ⮚ Chandrasekhar Maruti v. ACIT [159 ITD 822 (Mum.)] ⮚ Ishwar Chand Jindal v. ACIT [171 TTJ 436 (Del.)] ⮚ CIT v. Amrik Singh [56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H)] ⮚ CIT v. Amrik Singh [62 taxmann.com

DCIT CIRCLE 2.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRESTIGE HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

ITA 4161/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 2(11)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253(3)Section 254(1)

22)(e). To support his submission, the ld.AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision: ⮚ DCIT v. Ashok D. Jain [ITA No. 4505/Mum/2013] dated 27.04.2018 ⮚ Chandrasekhar Maruti v. ACIT [159 ITD 822 (Mum.)] ⮚ Ishwar Chand Jindal v. ACIT [171 TTJ 436 (Del.)] ⮚ CIT v. Amrik Singh [56 taxmann.com 460 (P & H)] ⮚ CIT v. Amrik Singh [62 taxmann.com

THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS) 2, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1999/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1999/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बिाम/ The Board Of Control For Acit (Tds) 2 Cricket In India, R.No. 701, 7 Th Floor, Wankhede Stadium, Smt. K.G. Mittal V. “D” Road, Churchgate, Ayurvedic Hospital Mumbai 400020 Bldg., Charni Road, Mumbai-400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaatb0186A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Nitesh Joshi Shri. Anil Sathe Revenue By : Shri. D.G Pansari , Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1999/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Date 10.01.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-60, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 16.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 272A(2)(K) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2011-12. I.T.A. No.1999/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari , DR
Section 200(3)Section 206Section 272Section 272A(2)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

e-TDS returns under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers the cases of levy of penalty under section 272A(2) of the Act, then in line with the provisions of said section in case a person establishes its case of reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of said section, then

BAKHTAWAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 6943/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6943/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Bakhtawar Construction Co. Addl. Cit (Tds) Rg 1 P. Ltd, Meher House, 10T H Floor, K.G. Mittal 1St Floor, Casasji Patel Street Ayurvedic Hosptial Bldg, V. Fort, Bombay 400001 Charni Road(W) Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacb4942P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Amogh M. GhaisasFor Respondent: Shri. Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 194CSection 272A(2)(k)

e-TDS returns under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers the cases of levy of penalty under section 272A(2) of the Act, then in line with the provisions of said section in case a person establishes its case of reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of said section, then

BLOOM PACKAGING P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4663/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Precy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Vinita Menon, DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 14A

e) of section 2(22) of the Act are some of the situations, which attracts these provisions subject to exceptions provided therein. It is a settled legal proposition that the provisions of section 2(22) constitutes “deemed dividend” and must receive a „strict interpretation‟ [CIT vs Martin Burn Ltd (136 ITR 805) (Cal)]. The judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4391/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4395/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4392/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 497/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS applies only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax under the IT Act. It is P a g e | 22 9 Appeals ITO (IT)-3(2)(2) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer Ltd. true that the judgment in Eli Lilly was confined to Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 500/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS applies only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax under the IT Act. It is P a g e | 22 9 Appeals ITO (IT)-3(2)(2) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer Ltd. true that the judgment in Eli Lilly was confined to Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPE\RS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS SUCESSOR OF BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 498/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS applies only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax under the IT Act. It is P a g e | 22 9 Appeals ITO (IT)-3(2)(2) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer Ltd. true that the judgment in Eli Lilly was confined to Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3(2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 782/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

22 4 Appeals ITO (IT)-3(2)(2) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer Ltd. that where such broker, general commission agent or any other agent works mainly or wholly on behalf of a non-resident (hereafter in this proviso referred to as the principal non-resident) or on behalf of such non- resident and other non-residents which are controlled

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) 3 (2) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (AS SUCESSOR OF LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH WAS BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the cross objection filed by the assesse are also dismissed

ITA 783/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

22 4 Appeals ITO (IT)-3(2)(2) Vs. M/s Macrotech Developer Ltd. that where such broker, general commission agent or any other agent works mainly or wholly on behalf of a non-resident (hereafter in this proviso referred to as the principal non-resident) or on behalf of such non- resident and other non-residents which are controlled

AMAR VITHALDAS GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3107/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Amar Vithaldas Gandhi, Dy. Cit Circle 35(1), 203, Panorama Apartments, Kautilya Bhavan, Jaisukhlal Mehta Road, Santacruz Vs. Mumbai. West, Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aefpg 2142 G Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Fenil Bhat
Section 2(22)(e)

section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the in the hands of the assessee, subject to upper limit of subject to upper limit of accumulated accumulated profit of the company. The assessee contended that the loan was sanctioned The assessee contended that the loan was sanctioned The assessee contended that the loan was sanctioned under

OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3469/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263o

TDS compliance. The real issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is whether the provisions of section 11 is applicable and in the subsequent proceedings, the Assessing Officer has verified the allowability of the rent and he has not properly verified the same. In our view, the venturing in the subsequent proceedings are beyond the scope of the grounds

BALKRISHNA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 142/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bkt House, C Wing, 15 Th Floor, Cit Cir Rg 6(1) Trade World, Kamal Mills Vs. Mumbai Compund, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacb3333J Assessee By .. Shri Farrokh Irani, Ar Revenue By .. Shri Suman Kumar, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 09-02-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 26-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 301

section 2(22)(e) of the Act will not attract to the present case of the assessee. Accordingly, we delete the addition and allow the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 8. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of non reconciled AIR data