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.

3 results for “TDS”+ Section 164(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai392Delhi277Bangalore125Karnataka86Chennai75Chandigarh70Kolkata54Jaipur43Ahmedabad39Raipur35Lucknow24Hyderabad24Pune19Visakhapatnam18Jodhpur13Indore13Cochin12Surat11Ranchi11Cuttack9Rajkot8Patna7Agra5SC3Nagpur2Jabalpur1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 402TDS2

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)

164 or section 164A or section 167B, as the case may be, or the rate or rates of income-tax specified in this behalf in the Finance Act of the relevant year, whichever is applicable. (ii) for the purposes of deduction of tax under sections 193, 194, 194A, 194B, 194BB and 194D the rate or rates of income-tax specified

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

1. GRANT OF LICENSE: This EULA grants you the following rights: a. Systems Software - You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer, including a workstation, terminal, or other digital electronic device (“COMPUTER”). You may permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely

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

1) of Section 200 of the act. It also had proviso clause whereby the assessee was eligible to get deduction of such expenditure in a subsequent year in which such tax deducted at source has actually been paid. The plea raised by the assessee, therefore, does not support the claim.” (emphasis in bold supplied) 8 The extraction is from