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.

15 results for “TDS”+ Section 2(19)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,158Mumbai3,121Bangalore1,646Chennai1,131Kolkata602Pune535Hyderabad417Ahmedabad402Jaipur295Indore256Karnataka211Chandigarh208Raipur206Cochin139Visakhapatnam128Nagpur112Rajkot104Lucknow94Surat90Cuttack42Ranchi40Jodhpur35Panaji31Patna28Telangana28Guwahati26Amritsar25Agra22Dehradun21Allahabad15SC15Jabalpur10Kerala10Calcutta10Himachal Pradesh6Varanasi6Uttarakhand3Rajasthan2Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 1949Section 271C9TDS8Section 276C5Section 194H4Section 194A4Section 1424Section 10(20)4Section 103Deduction

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

19. Another plea which was urged with some amount of vehemence was that the provisions of Section 276-CC are applicable only when there is discovery of the failure regarding evasion of tax. It was submitted that since the return under sub-section (4) of Section 139 was filed before the discovery of any evasion, the provision has no application

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 133A
3
Survey u/s 133A3
Exemption2
Section 192(1)
Section 201(1)
Section 9(1)(ii)

19. Shri C.S. Agarwal, learned senior counsel, Shri Kannan Kapoor, and Shri Salil Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for various other assessees 22 have adopted the arguments mentioned hereinabove. III. Relevant Provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961: Section 2 - Definitions. “2.(37A) “Rate or rates in force” or “rates in force”, in relation to an assessment year or financial year

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 is made under section 195(1) of the Income Tax Act, or such person has, after applying section 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, not deducted such proportion of tax as is required, that the consequences of a failure to deduct and pay, reflected in section 201 of the Income Tax Act, follow, by virtue of which

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 either at the time of payment or booking, whichever is earlier; and thus, the said provision would apply to both the situations where the expenses amount has been “paid” or is “payable”. However, according to the learned counsel, the additional consequence of default as provided in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would come into operation only

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

TDS”? Page 17 of 31 7.3 In order to appreciate the rival contentions and to answer the aforesaid questions, it is necessary   to   have   analysis   of   Statutory provisions.  7.4 The relevant provisions are as under: ­  “Section 201(1A) of the Act Without prejudice to the provisions of sub­section   (1),   if   any   such   person, principal   officer   or   company   as   is referred

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

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

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

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

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

2%. The JAL filed the appeal against this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) accepted the contention of the JAL and allowed the appeal vide order dated 31.01.2001, holding that landing and parking charges were inclusive of number of services in compliance with the International Protocol of the ICAO. The Revenue challenged the order

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

19 6.9. Ultimately, the AAR held that the question raised in the applications filed under Section 197 was prima facie designed for avoidance of tax. Though the assessees contended that the shares of the Singapore Co. derived their value substantially from assets located in India and that they were eligible to claim benefit under Article 13(4) of the DTAA

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

2) one finds that for the first time w.e.f. 1.4.2000 the word \023cost\024 stood explained to mean the amount actually paid for acquiring specified securities and where no money had been paid, the cost was required to be taken as nil. 15. In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

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 with interest. 19 48. The Appeal is dismissed. …….................................J [ INDIRA BANERJEE ] NEW DELHI; JULY 29, 2022 20 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4964  OF 2022 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No. 9233 OF 2020 NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ...APPELLANT Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

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

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

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

2) The present appeal has been filed against the impugned final judgment and order dated 03.09.2012 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in GA No. 2029 of 2012 ITAT No. 175 of 2012 whereby a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate

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)

19. Heard Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 20. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant (assesse) were two-fold. In the first place, he argued that the payments made by the appellant to the accredited agencies during the assessment years in question were not in the nature

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