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.

6 results for “TDS”+ Section 02clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,253Delhi1,072Bangalore569Chennai351Kolkata338Ahmedabad176Hyderabad174Pune163Jaipur126Chandigarh104Raipur98Karnataka89Indore70Surat45Lucknow40Cuttack31Nagpur29Visakhapatnam26Guwahati23Rajkot22Ranchi22Agra21Allahabad21Patna18Jodhpur18Amritsar13Cochin13Jabalpur11Dehradun8Telangana7Varanasi7SC6Panaji6Calcutta5Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 2444Section 194A4Section 1424Section 10(20)4Section 103TDS3Section 2412Section 32

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned with

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-000792-000793 - 2014Supreme Court02 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 131Section 142
Section 142(1)
Section 194A
Section 3

TDS), Kanpur vs. Canara Bank where we have considered and decided those issues by our judgment of this date. After dismissal of the writ petition dated 28.02.2011 the appellant filed a review application which too was dismissed on 04.11.2011. Aggrieved by those two judgments Civil Appeal Nos.792-793 of 2014 have been filed by the appellant. 6. We have heard Shri

M/S NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX APPEALS(41)

The appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-015613-015613 - 2017Supreme Court02 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 194Section 201

TDS shall be deducted on the payment of the lease rent to the Greater Noida as per Section 194­I.  Reliance on circular dated 30.01.1995 has been placed by the Noida/Greater Noida.  A perusal of the circular dated 30.01.1995 indicate that the query which has been answered in the   above   circular   is   “Whether   requirement   of   deduction   of income­tax at source under

M/S K LAKSHMANYA AND COMPANY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order

C.A. No.-004335-004335 - 2012Supreme Court01 Nov 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 241Section 244

02 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 234(A) to (C) was levied. Aggrieved by this levy of interest, the assessee filed an application before the Settlement Commission, requesting the Commission to waive the interest on the ground that it caused hardship to it. The Settlement Commission, by its order dated 22.03.2000, referred to a circular of the CBDT which

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

C.A. No.-000262-000262 - 2026Supreme Court15 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

02,50,194/- 2. Tiger Global International III Holdings, Mauritius 1,422,897 USD 181,782,633.10 equivalent to INR Rs.1259,75,36,473.83 3. Tiger Global International IV Holdings, Mauritius 66,026 USD 8,435,171.44 equivalent to INR Rs.58,45,57,380.79 5.6. Thereafter, the assessees approached the Indian tax authorities by filing applications under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR vs. CANARA BANK

The appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-006020-006020 - 2018Supreme Court02 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 194ASection 3

TDS),   Kanpur   and   Anr.   vs. Canara   Bank   wherein   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court   dated 04.04.2016 in ITA No. 64 of 2016 has been questioned. 4 3.   The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority  (NOIDA), hereinafter referred to as “Authority” has been constituted by Notification dated 17.04.1976 issued under Section 3 of the Uttar   Pradesh   Industrial   Area   Development   Act,   1976 hereinafter