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.

19 results for “TDS”+ Section 13(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,290Mumbai4,257Bangalore2,168Chennai1,474Kolkata1,066Pune654Hyderabad589Ahmedabad554Jaipur394Raipur373Indore318Chandigarh302Karnataka287Cochin259Nagpur242Surat206Visakhapatnam179Rajkot131Lucknow102Cuttack91Amritsar81Dehradun76Patna56Jabalpur48Ranchi48Panaji45Agra44Telangana40Allahabad36Guwahati35Jodhpur32SC19Kerala14Varanasi13Calcutta10Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Orissa3Uttarakhand3Punjab & Haryana2J&K2Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 19411TDS11Section 271C9Section 2018Section 276C5Deduction5Section 194H4Section 2444Section 194A4Section 142

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

C.A. No.-010677-010679 - 2010Supreme Court16 Dec 2010
Section 115J
4
Survey u/s 133A3
Exemption2

TDS, any advance tax, any tax paid on self assessment and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest, then, without prejudice to provisions of sub-section (2), an intimation will be sent to the assessee specifying the amount so payable and such intimation shall be deemed to be a notice of demand under Section

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

3 in exercise of the power under the proviso to clause (1) of Article 243Q of the Constitution of India specifying the appellant to be an “industrial township” with effect from the date of the notification in the Official Gazette. A notice dated 29.08.2005 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax to the appellant for furnishing Income

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

3. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are under: ­  3.1 By   order(s)   dated   26.09.2013,   the   ACIT   by way   of   orders   under   Section   271C   levied penalty   equivalent   to   the   amount   of   TDS deducted   for   AYs   2010­11,   2011­12   and 2012­13   on   the   ground   that   there   was   no good   and   sufficient   reason   for   not   levying penalty

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

TDS, which in total amounted to Rs. 57,11,625/-; and added the same back to the total income of the assessee-appellant. The AO also disallowed a lump sum of Rs. 20,000/- from various expenses debited to the Profit and Loss Account and finalised the assessment, accordingly, as under:- “Therefore, considering the provisions of Section 194C, Section

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 and Anr. Vs. Canara Bank.   Having held   that   Noida   is   covered   by   the   notification   dated 22.10.1970, the judgment of the Delhi High Court holding that 12 Noida/Greater   Noida   is   entitled   for   the   benefit   of   Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) has to be approved.    13

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

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

3 of 18 Page 4 JUDGMENT for Airports and Air Navigation Services. All member States abide by the guidelines and rules prescribed for various charges to be levied for facilities and services provided including landing/parking charges. 5. The AAI under the provisions of the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 has been authorized to fix and collect charges for landing

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

TDS, without any reference to chargeability of tax under the Income Tax Act by the concerned non- resident assessee. This section is similar to sections 193 and 194 of the Income Tax Act by which deductions have to be made without any reference to the chargeability of a sum received by a non-resident assessee under the Income

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

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

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)

13 learned counsel, are undoubtedly taxable in India in the hands of the recipient. Nevertheless, no tax would be deductible at source thereon as they are made outside India and are not subject to the TDS provisions. 15. On the point of interpretation of Section 192(1), learned counsel submitted that the said section can be divided into two distinct

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

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the IT Act’) was completed on 28.12.2007. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 12.10.2009, disallowed the export commission charges paid by the assessee to M/s. Steel Crackers Pvt. Ltd. 9 amounting to Rs. 40,82,089/- while stating that the tax deducted at source (TDS) on such commission amount

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)

3 person, advertiser or representative of any advertiser for whom it may be acting or has acted as an advertising agency. The agreement also provided the manner, mode and the time within which the payment was to be made by the Agency to the appellant. The failure to make the payment was to result in losing the accredited status

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

13. It is a well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislation must

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

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

3 same by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court on 21.5.2004; the point based on Ground No. 7 was not taken up in the appeal preferred by the appellant in the High Court. The High Court further held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 12.7.2002 got itself merged into the order passed

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

3 was dismissed. However, in appeal to the High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 09.12.2009, the High Court of Karnataka held that, since waiver of interest was within the discretion of the Settlement Commission, no right flowed to the assessee to claim refund as a matter of right under law. In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgments of the Tribunal

HONDA SIEL CARS INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the results. As a consequence, we find no

C.A. No.-004918-004918 - 2017Supreme Court09 Jun 2017

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

Section 148

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) stating that said expenditure was capital in nature and, therefore, instalment towards royalty paid in the sum of Rs. 79602000/-, by the assessee to HMCL, Japan in that year had escaped assessment. Ultimately, orders were passed treating the same as capital expenditure. In the subsequent years