RAMANIYAM REAL ESTATES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I, LTU,, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the party-wise details submitted by the assessee indicated that payments made to each party were below the threshold limits prescribed for TDS. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of these payments.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer disallowed 30% of expenses totaling Rs. 47,87,748/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for alleged non-deduction of TDS, a disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that payments to parties did not exceed the threshold limits for TDS.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is sustainable when payments are below TDS threshold limits, and if the lower authorities properly considered the evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194C,Section 194I,Section 194J,Section 143(3),Section 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [herein after “ld.CIT(A)] dated 13.08.2025 and pertains to Assessment Year(A.Y.) 2018-19 against the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026