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.

1,601 results for “disallowance”+ Section 201clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,601Delhi1,280Bangalore717Chennai491Kolkata448Jaipur187Hyderabad184Ahmedabad171Raipur124Pune106Surat99Chandigarh60Karnataka56Rajkot47Indore45Lucknow36Cochin30Amritsar27Panaji26Visakhapatnam25Cuttack25Nagpur25Jodhpur22Telangana16Ranchi11SC10Dehradun10Patna9Guwahati8Agra6Punjab & Haryana6Jabalpur5Kerala5Allahabad3Varanasi3Calcutta2Rajasthan2Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 40109Disallowance60Section 143(3)57Section 14A54Deduction44Addition to Income43Section 115J39TDS24Section 201(1)23Section 147

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 133/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

201 held that no taxes required to be deducted on discounts. 11. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was allowed and therefore the learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. 12. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the learned CIT – A has merely followed the decision of the various tribunals and held

Showing 1–20 of 1,601 · Page 1 of 81

...
22
Section 25020
Section 20120

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 131/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

201 held that no taxes required to be deducted on discounts. 11. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was allowed and therefore the learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. 12. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the learned CIT – A has merely followed the decision of the various tribunals and held

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 132/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

201 held that no taxes required to be deducted on discounts. 11. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was allowed and therefore the learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. 12. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the learned CIT – A has merely followed the decision of the various tribunals and held

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 129/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

201 held that no taxes required to be deducted on discounts. 11. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was allowed and therefore the learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. 12. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the learned CIT – A has merely followed the decision of the various tribunals and held

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 130/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

201 held that no taxes required to be deducted on discounts. 11. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was allowed and therefore the learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. 12. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the learned CIT – A has merely followed the decision of the various tribunals and held

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETINGS INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 127/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

201 held that no taxes required to be deducted on discounts. 11. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was allowed and therefore the learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. 12. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the learned CIT – A has merely followed the decision of the various tribunals and held

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 128/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

201 held that no taxes required to be deducted on discounts. 11. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was allowed and therefore the learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. 12. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the learned CIT – A has merely followed the decision of the various tribunals and held

INFINITY RETAIL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT(TDS)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 92/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleinfinity Retail Limited, Cit (Tds) – 1 Unit No. 701 & 702, 7Th Room No. 900, 9Th Floor, बनाम/ Floor, Kaledonia, Sahar K.G. Mittal Building, Road, Andheri (East), Vs. Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai – 400069. Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccv1726H .. (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi. ARFor Respondent: Shri Jasjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)Section 262Section 263

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Whereas the A.O. has passed the order in respect of short deduction of TDS under section 201

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi Hande SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADCS8104P : Shri Nishant Gandh, AR Assessee by Revenue by : Ms Samruddhi Hande SR DR, Aditya M Rai Sr AR, Suresh Gaikwad SR AR Date of hearing: 17-02-023,23/06/2023 and 07/07/2023 Date of pronouncement

SAFE AND SURE MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS), WARD 8(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for partly allowed for 7

ITA 4566/MUM/2025[2013–14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: None
Section 201Section 201(1)

Section 201(I) should be deleted. 2 Supported by Law: SC in Hindustan should be deleted. 2 Supported by Law: SC in Hindustan should be deleted. 2 Supported by Law: SC in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Lid. v. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Lid. v. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) Coca Cola Beverage

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2094/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

disallowed 30% of such expenses under the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the act. vii. Therefore a show cause notice was issued why should not be treated as an “assessee in default” in respect of the provisions under section 201

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2092/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

disallowed 30% of such expenses under the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the act. vii. Therefore a show cause notice was issued why should not be treated as an “assessee in default” in respect of the provisions under section 201

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2093/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

disallowed 30% of such expenses under the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the act. vii. Therefore a show cause notice was issued why should not be treated as an “assessee in default” in respect of the provisions under section 201

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2095/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

disallowed 30% of such expenses under the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the act. vii. Therefore a show cause notice was issued why should not be treated as an “assessee in default” in respect of the provisions under section 201

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OSD(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI(PRESENT IN CHARGE JCIT CC-2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2096/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

disallowed 30% of such expenses under the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the act. vii. Therefore a show cause notice was issued why should not be treated as an “assessee in default” in respect of the provisions under section 201

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2097/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

disallowed 30% of such expenses under the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the act. vii. Therefore a show cause notice was issued why should not be treated as an “assessee in default” in respect of the provisions under section 201

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2091/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

disallowed 30% of such expenses under the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the act. vii. Therefore a show cause notice was issued why should not be treated as an “assessee in default” in respect of the provisions under section 201

DISH TV INDIA LTD vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3739/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumardish Tv India Ltd. Fc–19, Firm City, Sector–16A ……………. Appellant Noida 400 063 Pan – Aaaca5478M V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–11(1), Mumbai Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Range–16(1), Mumbai V/S Dish Tv India Ltd. 135, Continental Building Dr. A.B. Road, Worli ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaaca5478M

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 142(1)Section 14A

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made. Of course, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also referred to the order passed by the first appellate authority in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008–09 and 2010–11 against the order passed under section 201

DCIT(OSD)(TDS) - 2(3), MUMBAI vs. WOCKHARDT LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2636/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ayush Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201(1)Section 250Section 40

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) by assessee having been accepted by AO, we are of the opinion that the same amount cannot be considered as amount covered by the provisions of section 1940 to 1941 so as to raise TDS demand again under section 201

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2266/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section 14 A of the act. The learned