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.

8 results for “TDS”+ Section 40aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi552 Mumbai498 Chennai265 Bangalore234 Kolkata226 Ahmedabad125 Hyderabad108 Pune94 Jaipur86 Visakhapatnam57 Indore53 Chandigarh47 Raipur43 Rajkot38 Cuttack37 Cochin28 Surat23 Amritsar19 Lucknow18 Guwahati16 Nagpur15 Patna13 Jodhpur12 Agra8 Karnataka7 Ranchi5 Varanasi4 Jabalpur4 Dehradun4 Allahabad3 Calcutta3 Panaji2 Telangana1 SC1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)9 Addition to Income7 Section 406 Section 686 Disallowance6 Section 143(1)5 Section 1544 Section 1954 Section 2634 TDS

SMT. NEETA SHARMA,AGRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 90/AGR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 234BSection 40Section 40A(3)

TDS u/s 194C of the IT Act. The CIT(A) held that in view of the amendment to section 40A

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 415/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

4

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9

section 40a (ia) of the Act, disallowance of expenditure, is not attracted for the payments made to the overseas agents by the 16 | P a g e assessee without deduction of TDS

ANKITA PALIWAL,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALIGARH

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

ITA 195/AGR/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 90

TDS was deducted of Rs. 2,82,020/- in USA. The assessee is resident in India. The assessee filed its return of income within time allowed u/s. 139(1) wherein, the global income was disclosed and due credit of tax paid in USA was also deducted in view of the provisions of section 90 of the Act. It was submitted

M/S R.K. BAJPAI,AURAIYA vs. CIT -1, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 154/AGR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S R.K. Bajpai, Vs..Dcit,Circle-1, Dibiyapur, Auraiya. Agra. Panno.Aaffr8521G (Assessee) (Revenue)

Section 194CSection 263Section 40Section 40a

section, 40a(ia) the Income Tax Act, 1961 of a sum of Rs.4,92,250/- debited towards rent of equipment. 5. That the Hon'ble ITAT, Agra vide order dated 26.04.2016 has already held that the order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is invalid in respect of Ground no. 2 and 3 above. Any other relief

TOMAR AND BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), ETAWAH

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 250(6)Section 40

TDS aggregating to Rs. 9,53,000/- is uncalled for. The authorities below had made the disallowance on mere doubt, despite the audit-report clearly stating that the assessee was not liable for tax deduction at source under any provision of the 'Act'. The 'appellant 'had also furnished details of payees of machinery, rent vide reply dated

AVNEESH KUMAR CHATURVEDI,AGRA vs. I.T.O-2(2), AGRA

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 386/AGR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

TDS certificates, and two, the payments of Rs.15,48,900/-, which had been made through bearer cheques by the assessee which came within the ambit of section 40A

GIRDHARI LAL KEDAR NATH SINGHAL,AGRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 182/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmangirdhari Lal Kedar Nath Singhal, Vs. Ito 1 (1)(1), Ff – 1, Bhagwati Complex, Agra. M.G. Road, Opp. Shah Cinema, Agra – 282 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aacfg5458N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 03.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 80G

TDS was required to be deducted on the date of payment or credit whichever is earlier, but no tax was deducted when payments were made. Lastly, these persons did not appeared before the AO in response to summons issued under section 131 of the Act for personal appearance and even, the appellant had not produced those persons for examination

MANISH MAHESHWARI,GWALIOR vs. JCIT RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 308/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Him Though Specific Request Was Made To Admit The Same. Ground No. 2 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed Theaddition Of Rs. 67,530/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act. (Ii) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Legally Erred In Rejecting The Appellant'Sspecificsubmissionand The Unavoidable Circumstances Under Which The Payment Wasmade. Ground No. 3 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed An Addition Of Rs. 1,11,038/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Disallowing The Claim Of Interest Paid Holding The Same To Be Not Allowable U/S 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act.”

Section 133Section 40A(3)Section 57Section 68

40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. (ii) Because the Ld. CIT(A) has legally erred in rejecting the appellant'sspecificsubmissionand the unavoidable circumstances under which the payment wasmade. Ground No. 3 (i) Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily confirmed an addition of Rs. 1,11,038/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the claim