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.

1,499 results for “TDS”+ Section 250(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,499Delhi843Bangalore568Kolkata442Chennai345Pune292Raipur263Ahmedabad238Patna193Jaipur152Hyderabad150Cochin113Nagpur88Karnataka85Chandigarh79Indore74Lucknow68Rajkot64Surat57Visakhapatnam44Guwahati44Amritsar42Panaji30Jodhpur27Jabalpur20Agra19Ranchi18Cuttack16Dehradun14Allahabad9SC3Telangana3Varanasi1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 25066Addition to Income46TDS37Section 143(3)35Disallowance31Section 4027Section 201(1)25Section 1024Deduction24Section 271(1)(c)

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4606/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Moksha Mehta
Section 153(5)Section 244A

250 or section 254 or section 260 section 260 or section 262 or or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, , wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 1,499 · Page 1 of 75

...
22
Business Income21
Section 14A20

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4658/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Moksha Mehta
Section 153(5)Section 244A

250 or section 254 or section 260 section 260 or section 262 or or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, , wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4608/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Moksha Mehta
Section 153(5)Section 244A

250 or section 254 or section 260 section 260 or section 262 or or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, , wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4662/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(5)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

TDS amounting to Rs.8,25,78,755/-. In the said return, assessee did not offer the additional compensation received by him in view of proviso to section 45(5)(b). However, he intimated the details of the said transaction to the concerned Assessing Officer by way of a submission dated 09.08.2016. This letter formed the basis for initiating re-assessment

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4661/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(5)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

TDS amounting to Rs.8,25,78,755/-. In the said return, assessee did not offer the additional compensation received by him in view of proviso to section 45(5)(b). However, he intimated the details of the said transaction to the concerned Assessing Officer by way of a submission dated 09.08.2016. This letter formed the basis for initiating re-assessment

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

ITA 4740/MUM/2016[2013-14 (24Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Kapil D. Talreja &For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 156Section 200ASection 234E

250 of the Act is further appealable before the Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns / statements in the paras hereinabove

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

ITA 4741/MUM/2016[2013-14 (24Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Kapil D. Talreja &For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 156Section 200ASection 234E

250 of the Act is further appealable before the Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns / statements in the paras hereinabove

DISHA DISTRIBUTORS,MUMBAI vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

ITA 4742/MUM/2016[2013-14 (26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Kapil D. Talreja &For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 156Section 200ASection 234E

250 of the Act is further appealable before the Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns / statements in the paras hereinabove

SPRING TIME CLUBS & HOSPITALITY SERVICES P.LTD,KALYAN vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

ITA 4744/MUM/2016[2013-14 (24Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Sprigtime Clubs & Hospitality Assessing Officer, Tds Ward Services Pvt. Ltd. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road Vs. 2Nd Floor, Sprig Avenue, Club Road Kalyan (W), 421301 Kalyan (W) 421301 Pan – Aaocs9107M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kapil D. TalrejaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 156Section 200ASection 234E

250 of the Act is further appealable before the Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns / statements in the paras hereinabove

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3916/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

TDS of Rs. 12,23,608/- has been allowed by the has been allowed by the Income-tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or not. If it has been not allowed, then the credit of this amount

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3878/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

TDS of Rs. 12,23,608/- has been allowed by the has been allowed by the Income-tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or not. If it has been not allowed, then the credit of this amount

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7620/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri. Shiv PrakashFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari, DR
Section 140ASection 244ASection 244A(1)(b)

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly

FORESIGHT HOLDINGS, MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3938/MUM/2015[2013-14(Q-2,3 & 4)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Foresight Holdings Dcit (Tds) Cpc #11, 2Nd Floor, Ismail Mansion Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 94/96/98 Bazargate, Fort Sector 3, Vyshali Mumbai 400001 Ghaziabad 201010 Pan – Aacff9466H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 246A

250 of the Act is further appealable before this Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the course adopted by the assessees of invoking the appealable jurisdiction of this Tribunal for redressal of their grievance on this issue. 9. So far as the issue whether for the period prior to 01.06.15, such

SHRI TRUST T 2018,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6190/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalshri Trust T 2018, Universal Insurance Building, Ground Floor, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aauts1169E V/S

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar G Subramanyam, Sr.DR
Section 194LSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 250(7)

250(7) of the Income-tax Act. 1961. 5. That the Appellant is aware the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT is required to be filed within 60 days of the date of receipt of the order. At the outset the Appellant may respectfully mention that there has been no delay in filing the appeal as the order cannot

ROHA DYECHEM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2971/MUM/2015[2009-10(26Q 4TH)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar, D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

250 of the Act is further appealable before this Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the course adopted by the assessees of invoking the appealable jurisdiction of this Tribunal for redressal of their grievance on this issue. 9. So far as the issue whether for the period prior to 01.06.15, such

BHOJA VITTAL SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CPC TDS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3961/MUM/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar, D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

250 of the Act is further appealable before this Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the course adopted by the assessees of invoking the appealable jurisdiction of this Tribunal for redressal of their grievance on this issue. 9. So far as the issue whether for the period prior to 01.06.15, such

DINESHKUMAR S. GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 4088/MUM/2015[2013-14(Q-4)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar, D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

250 of the Act is further appealable before this Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the course adopted by the assessees of invoking the appealable jurisdiction of this Tribunal for redressal of their grievance on this issue. 9. So far as the issue whether for the period prior to 01.06.15, such

KAPOOR GLASS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) CPC, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 4071/MUM/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar, D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

250 of the Act is further appealable before this Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the course adopted by the assessees of invoking the appealable jurisdiction of this Tribunal for redressal of their grievance on this issue. 9. So far as the issue whether for the period prior to 01.06.15, such

BHASKAR KRISHNA SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CPC TDS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3964/MUM/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar, D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

250 of the Act is further appealable before this Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the course adopted by the assessees of invoking the appealable jurisdiction of this Tribunal for redressal of their grievance on this issue. 9. So far as the issue whether for the period prior to 01.06.15, such

DIAMOND SHIPBROKERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 4127/MUM/2015[2014-15(27Q-1)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar, D.R
Section 200ASection 234E

250 of the Act is further appealable before this Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the course adopted by the assessees of invoking the appealable jurisdiction of this Tribunal for redressal of their grievance on this issue. 9. So far as the issue whether for the period prior to 01.06.15, such