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.

4 results for “TDS”+ Section 273clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi290Mumbai253Patna150Bangalore115Karnataka107Chennai104Kolkata64Ahmedabad42Raipur40Chandigarh30Indore28Jaipur26Cochin23Hyderabad22Lucknow20Pune13Cuttack13Nagpur12Visakhapatnam11Rajkot7Kerala5Panaji5SC4Allahabad4Agra4Guwahati4Varanasi4Amritsar3Surat2Jodhpur2Orissa1Rajasthan1Telangana1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 271C9Section 276C5Section 115J4Section 804Section 80V2Section 332Section 2012TDS2Survey u/s 133A2

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

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)

section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.” IV. Issue: 20. Whether TDS

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

273, question No. 2 has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.\024 Mr. Vellapally further placed reliance on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Loyal Textiles Mills Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 307 (Madras), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thiroo Arooran Sugars Ltd. (2006) 152 Taxman 344 (Madras), Cochin Cadalas (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income

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

273] it was observed that courts must avoid the danger of a priori determination of the meaning of a provision based on their own preconceived notions of ideological structure or scheme into which the provision to be interpreted is somewhat fitted. They are not entitled to usurp legislative function under the disguise of interpretation