← All Phrases

“TDS on rent”

TDS / TCSSection 194ISection 194I50 judgments

THE UDHNA CITIZEN CO OPP. BANK LIMITED ,NOW MERGE WITH KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.OP. BANK LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. I.T.O TDS -2 , SURAT

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

ITA 512/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Ms Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT

SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1219/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashesh Rajesh Rewar, CIT-D.R
Section 263Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80G

consonance with the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. The Pr. CIT observed that the claim of additional depreciation, verify the TDS on rent and donation in the CRS, the necessary inquiry was not done by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved by the order

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

ITA 513/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R
Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

ITA Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025 Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

ITA 512/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

ITA Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025 Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

VIKAS VAISHNAV,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT, SURAT

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

ITA 309/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.309/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Vikas Vaishnav Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Plot No.261/262, 2Nd Floor, Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Office, 123, 1St Floor, Aaykar Right Side, Jay Santoshi Nagar, L.H. Road, Surat – 394 210 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Anspv 9504 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 147Section 194ISection 263Section 40

interest of revenue in terms of provision of Section 263 of the Act. The impugned issue which was non deduction of TDS on rent expenses of Rs.3,36,000/- u/s 194I of the Act. The Ld. PCIT issued show cause notices on 22.11.2024, however, it is clear that assessee

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 942/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 69CSection 6C

financial statement and as per tax audit report and financials was on account of the following reason.  Ind AS adjustment,  Non-deduction of TDS on rent expenses on which TDS was already deducted in the preceding assessment year.  Declaration by vendor based on the CBDT circular 21/2012 which falls within ... Loss account and the amount reported in TDS returns. The same was perused and it was noticed that the appellant has not deducted TDS on rent paid of Rs.66,27,250/- by giving the reason that “vendor has given the declaration that TDS is already suffered on software. Hence TDS

STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS LIMITED,TAMIL NADU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 2(3)(1),, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 845/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 69CSection 6C

financial statement and as per tax audit report and financials was on account of the following reason.  Ind AS adjustment,  Non-deduction of TDS on rent expenses on which TDS was already deducted in the preceding assessment year.  Declaration by vendor based on the CBDT circular 21/2012 which falls within ... Loss account and the amount reported in TDS returns. The same was perused and it was noticed that the appellant has not deducted TDS on rent paid of Rs.66,27,250/- by giving the reason that “vendor has given the declaration that TDS is already suffered on software. Hence TDS

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

NFAC has affirmed the order of Ld. AO and not allowing payment of rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- in respect of TDS on rent is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

NFAC has affirmed the order of Ld. AO and not allowing payment of rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- in respect of TDS on rent is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 216/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

NFAC has affirmed the order of Ld. AO and not allowing payment of rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- in respect of TDS on rent is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

nCopy of Reconciliation Statement showing Sale of Scarp and TCS\n113\nS. No.\nPARTICULARS\nPAGE\nNOS.\ntransactions\n(ix)\nCopy of ledger of TDS on rent showing transactions covered u/s\n1941 of the Income Tax Act\n114\n(x)\nCopy of Order of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur bench

PROCTER AND GAMBLE HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2326/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nMs. Aarti Vissanji & Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: \nShri R A Dhyani, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 40Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 68

nNot Paid\n5,000,000\n1,500,000 TDS on Contracts\nDismantling costs\nVarious Parties\n12\nNot Paid\n882,738\n264,821 TDS on Rent\nRent\nVarious Parties\n13\nNot Paid\n1,789,227\n536,768 TDS on Technical & Professional\nAudit\nVarious Parties\n14\nNot Paid\n67,679,454\n20.303

PUSHPA BAI MUNAT,BADNAWAR vs. CPC, BANGALURU, BANGALURU

ITA 125/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

SRI SAI CONSTRUCTION CO,NIZAMABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

1 ITA.No.670/Hyd./2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE

AMAR SINGH SAHU,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE 2(4) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 78/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kulhari, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 40

deductionof TDS on commission paid- Rs. 4,17,285/-  Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS on rent paid- Rs. 4,03,380/- 4. It may be mentioned here that the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny on the issue ... consequence of misreporting of income. (Addition Rs.4,17,285/-) 8. Disallowance U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for Non deduction of TDS on Rent paid: On perusal of the profit and loss account shown in ITR filed by the assessee, it is seen that the assessee has shown expenses

INFOOBJECTS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

For Appellant: Sh. Naman Maloo, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 201Section 40Section 92B(2)

read with circular no. 715 of 1995 it has been held that such hotel expense are not liable for TDS on rent. Hence, these expenses are not covered under the provisions of section 194C, so not liable 11 Infoobjects Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT to deduct TDS. Hence

KARNATAKA TYRE AGENCIES, ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3 , SHIMOGA

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

ITA 1914/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hiran Krishnaswamy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144

following disallowances: • Salary expenses: ₹96,790 • Club, vehicle, and computer expenses: ₹1,16,418 • Provision for taxation: ₹56,100 • Non-deduction of TDS on rent: ₹6,54,000 • Underreporting of partners’ current account: ₹2,73,610 • Unexplained sundry creditors: ₹29,51,311 3. These disallowances were added to the total ... hand is limited to the extent of the addition made by the AO as detailed below: • Salary expenses: ₹96,790 • Non-deduction of TDS on rent: ₹6,54,000 . Page 4 of 5 • Underreporting of partners’ current account: ₹2,73,610 • Unexplained sundry creditors

SHREE HARI ENTERPRISE ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

ITA 822/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194JSection 263

found to initiate the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. The learned PCIT has directed learned AO to verify the following issues: a. TDS on rent u/s 1941. b. TDS on professional and technical service u/s 194J. c. Value of Closing Stock (WIP) under Percentage Completion Method. d. Genuineness ... ld.Pr.CIT on considering the above reply filed by the assessee has given his finding at para 5.1 of his order as under: “5.1 TDS on Rent u/s 1941: The assessee contended that its total expenditure on Rent is Rs.31,90,941/-. The assessee has also argued that the issue

KUDALE AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-14, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1619/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 197Section 201(1)Section 40

made by the Ld. AO on account of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non- deduction of TDS on rent payment made to the payee. 5.1 As regards the interest payment to the fourth party i.e. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd., the Ld. AR admitted

ITO(TDS)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. N ROSE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6334/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B R Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.6328/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Ito (Tds)-2(3)(1), Room No.909, 9Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 ............... Appellant V/S N Rose Developers Private Limited, C-1 Building No.3, Sumer Nagar Chs Ltd. ……………… Respondent S.V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai -400092 Pan : Aaccn5680J Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Agrawal Revenue By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 194Section 194ISection 201(1)Section 250Section 4S

assessee was asked whether TDS has been deducted on rent paid to tenant. In response, the assessee submitted that it has not deducted TDS on rent paid to the tenant. Accordingly, notice under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was issued to the assessee requesting it to furnish

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3