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.

6,207 results for “disallowance”+ Section 201clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,601Delhi1,281Bangalore717Chennai491Kolkata448Ahmedabad291Jaipur198Hyderabad185Raipur124Pune108Surat102Cochin101Chandigarh63Cuttack61Karnataka56Indore53Rajkot49Lucknow37Amritsar29Panaji26Nagpur25Visakhapatnam25Jodhpur23Telangana16Ranchi13Agra12Dehradun11Guwahati10SC10Patna9Jabalpur8Punjab & Haryana6Allahabad5Kerala5Varanasi3Calcutta2Rajasthan2Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 4064Addition to Income60Section 143(3)59Disallowance50Section 153A49Deduction34Section 143(2)28Section 14A25Section 143(1)21Section 132

M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1723/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihcl Technologies Ltd, Acit(Tds), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14Th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida Pan: Aaach1645P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

section 201(1) of the Act could in any case be recovered from the appellant for alleged failure to deduct tax from the year end provision of expenses, as the liability to pay such tax was that of the payees direct.” 3. Brief facts of the case shows that the AO found that assessee has incurred expenditure

Showing 1–20 of 6,207 · Page 1 of 311

...
21
Section 14821
TDS15

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)
Section 201Section 254Section 40

disallowance under the latter section. This is for the simple reason that under the scheme of the Act, determination of default under Chapter XVII-B, which is sine qua non for application of section 40(a)(ia), is only possible by way of an order under section 201

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 130/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

201 held that no taxes required to be deducted on discounts. 11. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was allowed and therefore the learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. 12. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the learned CIT – A has merely followed the decision of the various tribunals and held

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 129/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

201 held that no taxes required to be deducted on discounts. 11. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was allowed and therefore the learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. 12. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the learned CIT – A has merely followed the decision of the various tribunals and held

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETINGS INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 127/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

201 held that no taxes required to be deducted on discounts. 11. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was allowed and therefore the learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. 12. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the learned CIT – A has merely followed the decision of the various tribunals and held

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 132/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

201 held that no taxes required to be deducted on discounts. 11. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was allowed and therefore the learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. 12. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the learned CIT – A has merely followed the decision of the various tribunals and held

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 128/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

201 held that no taxes required to be deducted on discounts. 11. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was allowed and therefore the learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. 12. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the learned CIT – A has merely followed the decision of the various tribunals and held

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 131/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

201 held that no taxes required to be deducted on discounts. 11. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was allowed and therefore the learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. 12. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the learned CIT – A has merely followed the decision of the various tribunals and held

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 133/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

201 held that no taxes required to be deducted on discounts. 11. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was allowed and therefore the learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. 12. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that the learned CIT – A has merely followed the decision of the various tribunals and held

M/S SHREE BALAJI CONCEPTS,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TXATION), WARD -1, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

ITA 73/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 73/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Hegde, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 156Section 191Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 205

disallowance is only in context of Residents [u/s 40a(ia)]. Further this benefit of proviso to section 201(1) is available

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 1151/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) by assessee having been accepted by AO, we are of the opinion that the same amount cannot be considered as amount covered by the provisions of section 194C to 194J so as to raise TDS demand again under section 201

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. M/S.DELL INDIA PVT.LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 2035/BANG/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) by assessee having been accepted by AO, we are of the opinion that the same amount cannot be considered as amount covered by the provisions of section 194C to 194J so as to raise TDS demand again under section 201

DELL INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), LTU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 1644/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) by assessee having been accepted by AO, we are of the opinion that the same amount cannot be considered as amount covered by the provisions of section 194C to 194J so as to raise TDS demand again under section 201

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1689/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) by assessee having been accepted by AO, we are of the opinion that the same amount cannot be considered as amount covered by the provisions of section 194C to 194J so as to raise TDS demand again under section 201

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1690/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) by assessee having been accepted by AO, we are of the opinion that the same amount cannot be considered as amount covered by the provisions of section 194C to 194J so as to raise TDS demand again under section 201

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2846/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) by assessee having been accepted by AO, we are of the opinion that the same amount cannot be considered as amount covered by the provisions of section 194C to 194J so as to raise TDS demand again under section 201

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

section 201 of the Act in such cases. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Future First Info Services (P.) Ltd.: 447 ITR299 (Delhi) wherein the court has held that the disallowance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

section 201 of the Act in such cases. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Future First Info Services (P.) Ltd.: 447 ITR299 (Delhi) wherein the court has held that the disallowance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

section 201 of the Act in such cases. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Future First Info Services (P.) Ltd.: 447 ITR299 (Delhi) wherein the court has held that the disallowance

INFINITY RETAIL LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT(TDS)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 92/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleinfinity Retail Limited, Cit (Tds) – 1 Unit No. 701 & 702, 7Th Room No. 900, 9Th Floor, बनाम/ Floor, Kaledonia, Sahar K.G. Mittal Building, Road, Andheri (East), Vs. Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai – 400069. Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccv1726H .. (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi. ARFor Respondent: Shri Jasjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)Section 262Section 263

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Whereas the A.O. has passed the order in respect of short deduction of TDS under section 201