Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

3,980 results for “TDS”+ Section 192clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi767 Bangalore616 Mumbai543 Indore393 Chennai266 Karnataka153 Kolkata148 Pune132 Chandigarh109 Raipur94 Cochin88 Jaipur83 Visakhapatnam80 Hyderabad79 Ranchi60 Ahmedabad52 Cuttack51 Lucknow47 Nagpur32 Jabalpur27 Amritsar23 Jodhpur20 Agra14 Rajkot14 Telangana14 Allahabad12 Patna12 Dehradun11 Guwahati11 Kerala8 SC7 Surat4 Varanasi4 Panaji4 Orissa1 Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 234E107 TDS62 Section 200A40 Section 143(3)35 Addition to Income30 Deduction30 Section 15427 Section 201(1)26 Section 19223 Section 4022 Disallowance

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2773/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 192(3)Section 201Section 220(2)Section 250

TDS recovered should be exactly 1/12 of the total tax deductible at source. A conjoint reading of sections 192(1) and 192

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Showing 1–20 of 3,980 · Page 1 of 199

...

18

ITA 2771/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed

ITAT Mumbai

27 Nov 2024

AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 192(3)Section 201Section 220(2)Section 250

TDS recovered should be exactly 1/12 of the total tax deductible at source. A conjoint reading of sections 192(1) and 192

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2778/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 192(3)Section 201Section 220(2)Section 250

TDS recovered should be exactly 1/12 of the total tax deductible at source. A conjoint reading of sections 192(1) and 192

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2777/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 192(3)Section 201Section 220(2)Section 250

TDS recovered should be exactly 1/12 of the total tax deductible at source. A conjoint reading of sections 192(1) and 192

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2776/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 192(3)Section 201Section 220(2)Section 250

TDS recovered should be exactly 1/12 of the total tax deductible at source. A conjoint reading of sections 192(1) and 192

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2775/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 192(3)Section 201Section 220(2)Section 250

TDS recovered should be exactly 1/12 of the total tax deductible at source. A conjoint reading of sections 192(1) and 192

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2774/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 192(3)Section 201Section 220(2)Section 250

TDS recovered should be exactly 1/12 of the total tax deductible at source. A conjoint reading of sections 192(1) and 192

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)

TDS provisions. 15. On the point of interpretation of Section 192(1), learned counsel submitted that the said section can be divided

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA

ITA 405/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Section 145(3)Section 54FSection 69Section 69A

TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit is estimated.\n3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.37,00,000/- out of total addition of Rs.\n52,00,000/- made on account of difference of investment in cost of\nconstruction of the property at 57, Laxmanpuri, Lucknow made

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 532/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)

Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on Cash Medical Benefit 6.1 The Lower Authorities have 2011-12 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 erred in treating the Appellant as 'assessee-indefault' under 2012-13 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 Section 201(1) of the IT Act by holding that the Appellant 2013-14 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 has failed to deduct tax under section 192

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 512/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)

Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on Cash Medical Benefit 6.1 The Lower Authorities have 2011-12 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 erred in treating the Appellant as 'assessee-indefault' under 2012-13 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 Section 201(1) of the IT Act by holding that the Appellant 2013-14 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 has failed to deduct tax under section 192

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 527/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)

Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on Cash Medical Benefit 6.1 The Lower Authorities have 2011-12 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 erred in treating the Appellant as 'assessee-indefault' under 2012-13 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 Section 201(1) of the IT Act by holding that the Appellant 2013-14 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 has failed to deduct tax under section 192

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 524/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)

Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on Cash Medical Benefit 6.1 The Lower Authorities have 2011-12 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 erred in treating the Appellant as 'assessee-indefault' under 2012-13 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 Section 201(1) of the IT Act by holding that the Appellant 2013-14 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 has failed to deduct tax under section 192

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 528/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)

Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on Cash Medical Benefit 6.1 The Lower Authorities have 2011-12 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 erred in treating the Appellant as 'assessee-indefault' under 2012-13 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 Section 201(1) of the IT Act by holding that the Appellant 2013-14 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 has failed to deduct tax under section 192

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 531/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)

Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on Cash Medical Benefit 6.1 The Lower Authorities have 2011-12 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 erred in treating the Appellant as 'assessee-indefault' under 2012-13 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 Section 201(1) of the IT Act by holding that the Appellant 2013-14 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 has failed to deduct tax under section 192

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 522/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)

Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on Cash Medical Benefit 6.1 The Lower Authorities have 2011-12 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 erred in treating the Appellant as 'assessee-indefault' under 2012-13 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 Section 201(1) of the IT Act by holding that the Appellant 2013-14 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 has failed to deduct tax under section 192

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 516/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)

Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on Cash Medical Benefit 6.1 The Lower Authorities have 2011-12 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 erred in treating the Appellant as 'assessee-indefault' under 2012-13 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 Section 201(1) of the IT Act by holding that the Appellant 2013-14 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 has failed to deduct tax under section 192

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 520/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)

Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on Cash Medical Benefit 6.1 The Lower Authorities have 2011-12 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 erred in treating the Appellant as 'assessee-indefault' under 2012-13 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 Section 201(1) of the IT Act by holding that the Appellant 2013-14 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 has failed to deduct tax under section 192

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 508/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)

Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on Cash Medical Benefit 6.1 The Lower Authorities have 2011-12 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 erred in treating the Appellant as 'assessee-indefault' under 2012-13 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 Section 201(1) of the IT Act by holding that the Appellant 2013-14 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 has failed to deduct tax under section 192

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) -WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 540/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)

Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on Cash Medical Benefit 6.1 The Lower Authorities have 2011-12 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 erred in treating the Appellant as 'assessee-indefault' under 2012-13 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 Section 201(1) of the IT Act by holding that the Appellant 2013-14 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 has failed to deduct tax under section 192