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.

23 results for “TDS”+ Section 8(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,334Delhi5,329Bangalore2,567Chennai2,021Kolkata1,445Pune1,064Hyderabad763Ahmedabad729Indore563Patna547Cochin481Jaipur473Raipur443Chandigarh355Karnataka349Nagpur326Surat259Visakhapatnam234Rajkot180Lucknow150Amritsar128Cuttack105Jodhpur100Dehradun95Panaji65Agra62Ranchi62Guwahati61Jabalpur59Telangana51Allahabad38SC23Varanasi17Kerala15Calcutta14Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan7Punjab & Haryana3J&K3Uttarakhand3Orissa3Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

TDS14Section 19411Section 2019Section 271C9Section 194A8Section 115J6Section 276C5Deduction5Section 194H4Section 244

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

2% per month or part of a month of the tax and interest determined on assessment or reassessment, in relation to return of income that was required to be furnished under section 139(1) or section 142(1) or section 148 or section 153A/153C as the case may be, existing on the date of conveyance of compounding charges

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)

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

4
Survey u/s 133A4
Double Taxation/DTAA3
Section 201(1)
Section 9(1)(ii)

TDS provisions in Chapter XVII-B, which are in the nature of machinery provisions to enable collection and recovery of taxes, are independent of the charging provisions which determines the assessability of income chargeable under the head “Salaries” in the hands of the recipient? Broadly stated, we have cases in which the tax-deductor-assessee(s) has not deducted

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

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

8. In answering these questions, through a judgment dated 24.09.2009, the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka relied heavily upon the judgment of this Court in Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. v. CIT, (1999) 7 SCC 266 [“AP Transco”] and held that since no application under section 195(2) of the Income Tax Act had been made

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

2)   of Section   115O   or   covered   by   the   second proviso   to   Section   194B   alone   would constitute an instance where penalty can be imposed in terms of Section 271C(1)(b) of the Act, namely, on non­payment. It is not for the Court   to   read   something   more   into   it, contrary to the intent and legislative wisdom.  7.7 At this stage

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT)4 vs. M/S. RELIANCE TELECOM LTD

C.A. No.-007110-007110 - 2021Supreme Court03 Dec 2021

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

Section 195(2)Section 254(2)Section 9(1)(vi)

TDS. It was contended by the Assessee that it was for the purchase of software and Ericsson A.B. had no permanent establishment in India and in terms of the DTAA between India and Sweden & USA, the amount paid is not taxable in India. 2 2.2 The Assessing Officer passed an order dated 12.03.2007 rejecting the Assessee’s application holding that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

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

2 to 6. However, while calculating interest payable under Sections 234B and C, the A.O. computed the shortfall of the tax payable without taking into account the set off of MAT credit. 8. The effect of the stand of the Department is as follows: 13 In Titan’s case, the assessee files its returns for assessment year

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

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

TDS comes to Rs.1,57,082/- when calculated @2% which was deducted from the payments made to AAI and deposited with the Revenue. The JAL thereafter filed its annual return in Form 26-C for the financial year 1997-1998. 7. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 201(1) of the Act on 04.06.1999 holding

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

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

8,435,171.44 equivalent to INR Rs.58,45,57,380.79 5.6. Thereafter, the assessees approached the Indian tax authorities by filing applications under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 19619, seeking certification of nil withholding prior to consummation of the transfer. By notices dated 17.08.2018, the tax authorities informed that the assessees would not be eligible to avail

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

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

8 of 12 these procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Companies Act, the Court observed that it is difficult to accept the argument of the Revenue that it is still open to the Assessing Officer to rescrutinize this account and satisfy himself that these accounts have been maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. The Court

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

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)

2) [Omitted by the Finance Act, 1992, w.e.f. 1-6- 1992.] (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply- (i) 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 by the person referred

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

8. Learned counsel for the revenue in support of its appeal submits that Noida and Greater Noida are not covered by the definition   of   local   authority   as   contained   under   Section 10(20) and their income is not exempted under Section 10(20). Judgment   of   Allahabad   High   Court   dated   28.02.2011   in   Writ Petition Tax No. 1338 of 2005 was also relied

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

2 referred to as the ‘Act, 1976’) by notification dated 17.04.1976. The Act, 1976 was enacted by State Legislature to provide for the constitution of an Authority for the development of certain areas in the State into industrial and urban township and for matters connected therewith. Under the Act, 1976 various functions have been entrusted to the Authorities. Notices under

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

2) of the Act. The Tribunal accordingly recalled its earlier order dated 12.7.2002 for the limited purpose of taking up the particular ground raised in Ground No. 7 in the memorandum of appeal. This order directing the reopening of the matter has attained its finality. The department did not challenge the said order. 7. The Tribunal upon rehearing the appeal

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

8 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

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)

8 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

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

2) SCC 508. According to him, since Section 244(A) is wider than the pre-existing Section 241, it is clear that all the judgments which deal with Section 241 apply with all force to the facts of this case. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H.Ghaswala