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.

21 results for “TDS”+ Section 11clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,676Delhi4,623Bangalore2,378Chennai1,707Kolkata1,197Pune885Hyderabad604Ahmedabad563Jaipur407Indore370Raipur350Karnataka333Cochin304Chandigarh280Nagpur250Visakhapatnam179Surat166Rajkot131Lucknow125Cuttack70Jodhpur66Patna58Ranchi54Amritsar52Dehradun48Agra45Telangana44Panaji41Guwahati38Jabalpur22SC21Allahabad15Calcutta13Kerala13Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Varanasi5J&K3Punjab & Haryana3Uttarakhand3Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

TDS12Section 19411Section 2019Section 271C9Section 194A8Section 115J6Section 276C5Deduction5Section 194H4Section 244

M/S US TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-007934-007934 - 2011Supreme Court10 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 201Section 271C

11 of 31 submitted that therefore, Section 276B talks about  “fails to pay,”  the words  which  are missing   in   Section   271C   of   the   Act.   It   is submitted   that   therefore,   wherever,   the Parliament   wanted   to   provide   for   the consequences   on   non­payment   of   the   TDS

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

C.A. No.-007865-007865 - 2009Supreme Court29 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 40

11,625/-, essentially in terms of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 19611, for failure of the assessee- appellant to deduct the requisite tax at source2. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’ or simply ‘the Act’. 2 ‘Tax deducted at source’ being referred as ‘TDS

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

4
Survey u/s 133A4
Exemption2

M/S JAPAN AIRLINES CO.LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI

C.A. No.-009875-009875 - 2013Supreme Court04 Aug 2015
Section 194

11. Section 194-I, on the other hand, which was in force at the relevant time, reads as under: “Section 194-I Any person, not being an Civil Appeal No. 9875 of 2013 & Ors. Page 7 of 18 Page 8 JUDGMENT individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to any person any income

NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION NEW DELHI

Appeal is hereby allowed to the extent

C.A. No.-004964-004964 - 2022Supreme Court29 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

Section 143(1)Section 197

TDS certificate dated 26.06.2019   and   seeking   relief   to   issue   the   fresh   certificate under Section 197, therefore, for ready reference, it is hereby reproduced as thus: 197. Certificate for deduction at lower rate. (1) Subject to rules made under sub-section (2A), where, in the case of any income of any person or sum payable to any person, income

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. CENTURY BUILDING INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD

C.A. No.-006820-006820 - 2005Supreme Court10 Aug 2007
For Respondent: M/s. Century Building Industries Pvt. Ltd
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194A(1)Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on the interests paid by the assessee to the creditors. The first question which arises for determination in these civil appeals is : whether it is open to the directors of the assessee-company to contend before the A.O., after search and survey operations, that the transactions entered into by the assessee were for namesake and that they actually related

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

11 to submit that explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act is clarificatory of the position in law right from 01.06.1976 when section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act was first brought into force. He then argued that the provisions for TDS

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD

C.A. No.-003725-003725 - 2007Supreme Court04 Jan 2008
For Respondent: Infosys Technologies Ltd
Section 17(2)(iii)Section 192

TDS under Section 192 amounting to Rs. 49.52 crores on the above perquisite value of Rs. 165 crores. Similar orders were also passed by the AO for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. These orders were confirmed by CIT(A). No http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6 weightage was given by both the authorities

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

C.A. No.-010677-010679 - 2010Supreme Court16 Dec 2010
Section 115J

11,067,561 15 Interest under 234C 4,018,170 Less: Set-off of MAT credit 54,015,189 Net tax payable 1,060,394 15,058,707 9. We have discussed hereinabove the scheme of Section 115JA(1) and Section 115JAA. The entire scheme of Sections 115JA(1) and 115JAA shows that if an assessee is entitled

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 142Section 142(1)Section 194ASection 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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

C.A. No.-005114-005114 - 2007Supreme Court25 Mar 2009
Section 133ASection 192(1)Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(ii)

11. On the penalty issue, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the imposition of penalty under Section 271C read with Section 273B is in the nature of a civil liability. According to the learned senior counsel the burden of bringing the case within the exception, namely, showing the “reasonable cause” is squarely on the assessee. On facts, in the context

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

11:37:02 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA XII vs. M/S CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY

C.A. No.-004339-004340 - 2018Supreme Court24 Apr 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

11 7) Learned senior counsel further contended that the courts below have erred in extending the meaning of the amendment made in Section 40(a) (ia) and in not accepting the plain meaning of the Section as being prohibitory in nature which makes the Respondent to deduct the TDS

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVREGE P.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed with no

C.A. No.-003765-003765 - 2007Supreme Court16 Aug 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax
Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 254

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under Section 201 (1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty under Section 271C of the Income-tax Act." 11

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

TDS Officer and the AAR had expressed only a prima facie view of the matter. The order dated 17.08.2018 passed under Section 197 of the Act merely prescribed a tentative and provisional rate of deduction of tax at source and did not amount to a conclusive determination of tax liability. Likewise, the AAR while observing that the transaction appeared prima

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 – Kanpur Vs. Central Bank of India, where the arguments has already been concluded and judgment is reserved. 9. Learned   counsel   for   the   revenue   submits   that Noida/Greater Noida is not entitled for the benefit of Section 194A(3)(iii)(f).   10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.   11

THE DIR. PRASAR BHARATI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTH

C.A. No.-003496-003497 - 2018Supreme Court03 Apr 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

Section 194HSection 201(1)

11 Provided that no deduction shall be made under this section in a case where the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the financial year to the account of, or to, the payee, does not exceed fifteen

MALAYALA MANORAMA CO LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

The appeals are allowed and the

C.A. No.-005420-005423 - 2002Supreme Court10 Apr 2008
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax,Trivandrum
Section 115JSection 33Section 80Section 80V

TDS deducted, the Assessing Officer created a total demand of Rs.26,83,327/-. It is relevant to mention here that since the provision of section 80VV stood deleted with effect from 01.4.1988 the claim made under that section was rejected. It was submitted that Chapter XII-B containing \023special provisions relating to certain companies\024 was introduced in the Income

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

VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-001977-001977 - 2025Supreme Court07 Feb 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 143(1)Section 276C

11 provides for the compounding procedure. 65. Paragraph 12 provides for the compounding fee which would be applicable to the compounding of offences committed under specific provisions of the Act. Paragraph 12.4 prescribes the compounding fee applicable to offences committed under Section 276CC and is reproduced hereinbelow: “12.4 Section 276CC- Failure to furnish returns of income. 12.4.1 2% per month

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-008181-008181 - 2022Supreme Court04 Nov 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA

Section 192Section 192(1)Section 201

TDS on this payment. All the same, LTC has to be availed by an employee within certain limitations, prescribed by the law. Firstly, the travel must be done from one designated place in India to another designated place within India. In other words, LTC is not for a foreign travel. Secondly, LTC is given for the shortest route between these