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.

73 results for “TDS”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,023 Delhi2,821 Bangalore1,359 Chennai1,198 Kolkata971 Ahmedabad641 Hyderabad589 Pune374 Cochin368 Jaipur331 Indore277 Chandigarh263 Karnataka223 Raipur201 Visakhapatnam182 Cuttack181 Surat168 Rajkot121 Nagpur93 Lucknow81 Amritsar73 Jabalpur69 Ranchi57 Jodhpur50 Guwahati50 Dehradun45 Agra39 Allahabad31 Panaji29 Telangana29 Patna28 Calcutta13 Kerala11 Varanasi11 SC9 Uttarakhand2 Gauhati1 Rajasthan1 J&K1

Key Topics

Section 4091 Addition to Income61 Disallowance43 Section 143(3)41 Section 250(6)34 TDS30 Deduction26 Section 14424 Section 1021 Section 40A(3)

THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF ICOME-TAX, JAMMU

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

ITA 241/ASR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. N.K.Choudhryassessment Year:2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (C.A)For Respondent: Sh. M. P. Singh (CIT- DR)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the deduction has to be allowed in computing the income of the previous year in which such TDS

MESERS SPEED SURYA MOVIES ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 417/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

20

Section 145(3)17

18 Mar 2022

AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40

TDS, u/s194A read with section 40(a)(ia) of Act. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee stated

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 298/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 298/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan: Aaact6167G Dy. C. I. T., Vs. M/S. The Jammu & Kashmir Circle-1, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bank Ltd., Corporate Head Bhawan, Railhead Complex, Quarters, M. A. Road, Jammu. Srinagar. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Kanwal (D. R.)For Respondent: Written Submissions

Section 14ASection 40Section 40a

40(a)(ia) on account of short deduction of TDS. 9. On the facts and circumstances whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition on account of disallowance made u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 as there is no provision in section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 319/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the ground No

ITA 330/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 320/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 297/ASR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU, SRINAGAR vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 790/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 296/ASR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX , CIRCLE -1,, JAMMU vs. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 637/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amount to Rs.5,52,429/-, claim of depreciation on wooden partition deducting @ 100%, and disallowance section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. SH. MOHAN LAL, BATHINDA

ITA 170/ASR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 170/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pan: Aajpl8560B Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Mohan Lal Prop. Ward-1(2), Bathinda. M/S Ramji Dass Bko, Vill. Bhagiwander, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Kanwal (D. R.)For Respondent: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)

Section 133A(1)Section 194CSection 40Section 69C

TDS as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act, which attracted the mischief of the provisions of section 40

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO,, JAMMU ( J&K)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

ITA 27/ASR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. R.L. Gupta (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)

Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 68

TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) and Rs.4,77,187/- qua payment made in cash in violation of Sec.40A(3), The issue under consideration dealt with by following Courts:- i) Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Maddi Sudharshanam Oil Mills Vs CIT {1959} 37 ITR 369(AP). ii) Andhra Pradesh High Court in Indwell Construction

M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (HQRS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

ITA 38/ASR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. R.L. Gupta (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)

Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 68

TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) and Rs.4,77,187/- qua payment made in cash in violation of Sec.40A(3), The issue under consideration dealt with by following Courts:- i) Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Maddi Sudharshanam Oil Mills Vs CIT {1959} 37 ITR 369(AP). ii) Andhra Pradesh High Court in Indwell Construction

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 610/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

TDS Rs.60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia) the nature of the interest is also in question related

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

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

ITA 608/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

TDS Rs.60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia) the nature of the interest is also in question related

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS,), JALANDHAR

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

ITA 173/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

TDS Rs.60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia) the nature of the interest is also in question related

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 609/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

TDS Rs.60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia) the nature of the interest is also in question related

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-IV,, PATHANKOT vs. THE GURDASPUR CENTRAL CO. OPBANK LTD, GURDASPUR

In the result, the ground no

ITA 542/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenaandsh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 43D

TDS. The violation of section 40(a)(ia) will not be accepted. Considering this the ground no. (i) of the revenue

M/S. PMS DIESELS,,PHAGWARA vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PHAGWARA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 65/ASR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 65/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajeev K. Gubgotra, (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 268ASection 40

TDS on the impugned sum. How could, then, one may ask, section 40(a)(ia) be regarded as applicable? The order

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 100/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

section 40(a)(ia) being subsequent in time, it may well be that the assessee had, in terms of the provision as it stood for the relevant years, claimed and been allowed deduction for the year/s when the TDS