Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

183 results for “TDS”+ Section 277clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi205 Mumbai183 Patna151 Bangalore122 Karnataka104 Chennai59 Cochin55 Kolkata42 Chandigarh38 Ahmedabad22 Hyderabad16 Raipur15 Jaipur13 Rajkot12 Jodhpur9 Indore8 Visakhapatnam8 Lucknow6 Nagpur6 Himachal Pradesh6 Guwahati5 Pune3 Telangana3 Allahabad2 Surat2 SC2 Cuttack1 Dehradun1 Panaji1 Jabalpur1 Amritsar1 Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)60 Addition to Income49 Penalty44 Disallowance41 Section 4030 Section 271(1)(c)29 TDS27 Section 14A26 Deduction22 Section 201(1)

VODAFONE IDEA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6295/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

TDS officer passed an order under Section 154 of the Act revising the demand to Rs 12,90,28,277

DY. CIT (TDS)-2 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6242/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Showing 1–20 of 183 · Page 1 of 10

...

21

Section 194J

Section 201(1)

TDS officer passed an order under Section 154 of the Act revising the demand to Rs 12,90,28,277

INDIA STEEL WORKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO TDS 1(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4714/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4714/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/S India Steel Works Ltd, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Tds 1101 Tower 2, 1(2)(4), Vs. India Bulls Finance Centre, Mumbai. Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphiston, Mumbai-400013 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Dr.P.Danial

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act which was cancelled by the ld. CIT(A) by mis-appreciating the facts and law applicable as regard the TDS provisions and finally prayed that the order of ld.CIT(A) be set aside and that of AO be restored. 5. The ld. AR, per contra, strongly opposed the arguments

ITO (TDS) (OSD) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. EURO RSCG ADVERTISING P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 6210/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS under Section 194J instead of under Section 194C, thereby treating assessee as assessee in default under Section 201(1) and levying interest under Section 201(l A). 2.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of AO by treating the payment made towards

HUSSAINI FAKHRUDIN NALWALA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 23(), MUMBAI

In the result the ground No

ITA 1611/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhshri Hussaini Fakhrudin Acit-23(1), 113, 1St Floor, Matrumandir, Nalwalla, 501, Sagar Fortune, Water Field Road, Bandra (W), Tardeo, Grant Road (W), Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400050. Vs. Pan: Adipn6000G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ratan Samal (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S. Usmani (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

For Appellant: Shri Ratan Samal (AR)For Respondent: Shri S. Usmani (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

TDS is deductible on the said charges and further, erred in not appreciating the argument advanced which is supported with necessary evidences. ITA No.1611/ Mum /2017-Shri Hussaini Fakhrudin 2. The learned First Appellate Authority erred in confirming the assessment order wherein the Ld. Assessing Authority erred in disallowing travelling expenses amounting to Rs. 83,277/- on adhoc basis, even though

DCIT (TDS) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PORTLAND INDIA OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1741/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1741/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Portland India Outdoor बनाम/ Tax (Tds) 2(2), Advertising Private Ltd. Vs. R.No.703, 7Th Floor, 8Th Floor, Commerz Smt.K.G.Mittal Ayurvedic International Business Park, Hospital Building, Oberoi Garden City, Off. Charni Road, Western Express Highway, Mumbai - 400002 Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp1311M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra P. Yadav

Section 201(1)Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) is temporary, the said expenses are paid to the credit of government. However, TDS provisions provides for collecting tax on income of the deductee. Therefore, the disallowance by itself does not absolve the assessee of the consequence for failure to deduct and pay tax under any TDS provisions. iv) On the facts and circumstances

TATA SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal is also allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 50/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhtata Services Ltd Vs Acit-2(3)(2), 24, Homi Mody Street Fort, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 001 M.K.Road, Pan : Aaact3991J Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondednt

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 244A

277 Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd Rs.5,47,755 Cavincare Ltd Rs. 4,832 Sesa Sterlite Ltd Rs. 5,182 Rs.5,94,046 Total 4. The assessing officer added the said TDS amount of Rs.5,94,046/- to the income of the assessee. Out of the above five parties (refer page 8 of PB), the largest one is Tata Capital

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2485/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

TDS on advances, this ground is similar to Ground No. 2 of grounds of appeal raised by the revenue for the A.Y. 2006-07 and the decision taken therein shall apply mutatis-mutandis to the appeal for the A.Y. 2007-08. We order accordingly. 36. With regard to Ground Nos. 4 and 5 which is in respect of enhanced claim

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2486/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

TDS on advances, this ground is similar to Ground No. 2 of grounds of appeal raised by the revenue for the A.Y. 2006-07 and the decision taken therein shall apply mutatis-mutandis to the appeal for the A.Y. 2007-08. We order accordingly. 36. With regard to Ground Nos. 4 and 5 which is in respect of enhanced claim

ATOS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1464/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1464/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Atos Information Technology Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Hk Limited, C/O Atos India Income Tax-(International V. Pvt. Ltd.,Plant No. 5, Taxation) – 1(1)(2), Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Scindia House, Ltd., Pirojshanagar, Lbs Mumbai. Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai 400 097. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aakcs8720L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Jabir S. Chouhan (CIT-

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 199Section 234Section 234BSection 9(1)(vi)

TDS. 4. It is submitted by the assessee company that the assessee company had entered into a contract for providing data processing support service to Standard Chartered Bank, India, who are in the business of banking in India. It is submitted by the assessee company that the assessee company entered into a contract/agreement known as Cocteau agreement dated 12.02.2004 whereby

ITO 21 (1) (5), MUMBAI vs. JANSEVA MAJOOR SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT, MUMBAI

In the result, ground 1 of assessee’s appeal is allowed and

ITA 5881/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S Rifaur Rahman (Am) Ito 21(1)(5), Room No. Vs M/S Janseva Majoor Sahakari 120, 1Stfloor, Piramal Sanstha Maryadit, Chambers, Parel, 1, Dev Darshan, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400016 In Front Of Wakade House T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Pan : Aadfj0626J Appellant Respondednt M/S Janseva Majoor Sahakari Vs Ito 21(1)(5), Room No. 120, 1Stfloor, Piramal Sanstha Maryadit, 1, Dev Darshan, Ground Floor, Chambers, Parel, In Front Of Wakade House Mumbai-400016 T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Pan : Aadfj0626J Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(vi)

277/- for assessment year 2009-10. The assessment was completed on 30-12-2011 determining total income at Rs.10,61,69,963/-. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order besides the other additions, made addition under section 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 10,51,52,466/-, for the want of deduction of TDS

DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INFRSTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1422/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Reliance Infrastructure 14(3)(1), 453, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd. Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Reliance Energy Centre Vs. Santacruz East, Mumbai- 400055 Pan No. Aaccr7445Q Appellant .. Respondent M/S Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Reliance Energy Centre 14(3)(1), 453, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Santacruz East, Mumbai- Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-20 400055 Pan No. Aaccr7445Q Appellant .. Respondent

277 of 2009 dated 01-07-2013 wherein Hon’ble High Court held as under: - "(ii) In any view of the matter, the expenditure incurred on the replacement of the electricity meters was held to be capital expenditure by the Assessing Officer. This was on the ground that this electricity meters were installed at the premises of the customers after

RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 10(1) NOW DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1480/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Reliance Infrastructure 14(3)(1), 453, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd. Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Reliance Energy Centre Vs. Santacruz East, Mumbai- 400055 Pan No. Aaccr7445Q Appellant .. Respondent M/S Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Reliance Energy Centre 14(3)(1), 453, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Santacruz East, Mumbai- Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-20 400055 Pan No. Aaccr7445Q Appellant .. Respondent

277 of 2009 dated 01-07-2013 wherein Hon’ble High Court held as under: - "(ii) In any view of the matter, the expenditure incurred on the replacement of the electricity meters was held to be capital expenditure by the Assessing Officer. This was on the ground that this electricity meters were installed at the premises of the customers after

SWANSTON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1135/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

TDS as per the provision of section 40(a) of the Act, therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of ` 30,94,732/- being the payment made to a non-resident distributor to the total income of the assessee. Now, under these facts, we shall analyze, the validity of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s

HDFC SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 738/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Hdfc Securities Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 4(1) Office Floor 8 Mumbai I-Think Techno Campus Alpha Building, B Kanjurmarg (E) Mumbai – 400 042 Pan/Gir No.Aaach8215R Appellant) Respondent) .. Dcit – 4(1) (1) Vs. M/S. Hdfc Securities Ltd., Mumbai Office Floor 8 I-Think Techno Campus Alpha Building, B Kanjurmarg (E) Mumbai – 400 042 Pan/Gir No. Aaach8215R Appellant) Respondent) .. Assessee By Ms. Krupa R. Gandhi / Shri Vidhi Doshi Revenue By Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

TDS was of the view that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source out of such DATA link charges paid to various telecom service providers being professional services provided by the said service providers, in view of section 194J of the Act. The explanation of the assessee in this regard was that the said payments for DATA link

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1051/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1054/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1053/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1052/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

GANGOLI RAMESH SHENOY,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4159/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Jigna Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. A.R

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

277/- instead of Rs.2,67,938/-, which is appearing in undisclosed TDS column in A.Y. 2015-16. As per 26AS the assessee has received interest of Rs.4,93,520/- from M/s. Hitech Electro Components Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.5,73,077/- from M/s. Neotroniks Pvt. Ltd. with TDS deduction of Rs.49,352/- and Rs.57,308/- respectively. The AO further observed that