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.

551 results for “TDS”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,816 Delhi5,401 Bangalore2,605 Chennai2,203 Kolkata1,839 Pune1,422 Ahmedabad1,140 Hyderabad869 Cochin757 Patna747 Indore731 Jaipur671 Chandigarh551 Karnataka443 Nagpur390 Cuttack365 Raipur359 Visakhapatnam316 Surat257 Rajkot228 Lucknow184 Amritsar165 Ranchi138 Jodhpur134 Dehradun93 Agra86 Jabalpur85 Panaji84 Guwahati76 Telangana68 Allahabad67 Varanasi26 SC25 Calcutta21 Kerala17 Himachal Pradesh6 Rajasthan6 Punjab & Haryana5 J&K5 Orissa4 Uttarakhand2 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

TDS55 Section 26353 Section 4047 Section 143(3)44 Deduction25 Addition to Income24 Section 153C21 Section 14220 Disallowance18 Section 195

M/S KAPSONS FASHION PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 1014/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1014 To 1016/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR

TDS was deducted out of the expenditure incurred on which TDS was deductable as per the provisions of the Act, the same

M/S THE H.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,CHAMBA vs. ITO (TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 330/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 551 · Page 1 of 28

...

16

ITAT Chandigarh

05 Mar 2018

AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS deducted, TDS paid before the survey, TDS paid after the survey, and amount reversed due to various reasons ci was earlier

M/S THE H.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, DALHOUSIE BRANCH,CHAMBA vs. ITO (TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 326/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS deducted, TDS paid before the survey, TDS paid after the survey, and amount reversed due to various reasons ci was earlier

M/S THE H.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, BANIKHET BRANCH,CHAMBA vs. ITO (TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 334/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS deducted, TDS paid before the survey, TDS paid after the survey, and amount reversed due to various reasons ci was earlier

SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 372/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Us Challenging The Levy Of Penalty Both On Legal Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case :

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Garg, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

TDS was deducted on the same. The credit of the TDS has been claimed by the appellant in the Income

ITO (TDS), PATIALA vs. M/S S.A. SINGH & CO., BHAWANIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 986/CHANDI/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10(24)Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 133ASection 194CSection 194C(6)Section 2(31)Section 201(1)

deduct TDS u/s 194C of the Truck Union (M/s Shree Teg Bahadur Truck Operator Union, Bhawanigarh)who actually carried out the work

SIMMI GUPTA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT TDS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 212/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 212/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Simmi Gupta, The Dcit/Acit (Tds), 1076, Sector 37-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpg4983R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 194Section 201

TDS) and has held that it was the duty of the assessee to deduct the TDS and non-deduction of TDS

MADAN LAL,MANDI DABWALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 918/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Jindal, CA Smt. Rattan Kaur, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 194HSection 194Q

TDS deducted u/s. 194Q i.e. deduction of tax at source on payment of certain sum for purchase of goods and as per sub- section

MADAN LAL,MANDI DABWALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 919/CHANDI/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Mar 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Jindal, CA Smt. Rattan Kaur, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 194HSection 194Q

TDS deducted u/s. 194Q i.e. deduction of tax at source on payment of certain sum for purchase of goods and as per sub- section

M/S STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 1187/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Steel Strips Wheels Limited, Vs. The D.C.I.T.(Tds), Sco 49-50, Sector 26, Sector 17E, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aaccs3003L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR

Section 154Section 156Section 17(1)Section 192Section 200A

TDS deducted on salary and, therefore, there was no debate about the character of the income on which TDS was deductible

AVON CYCLES LIMITED,G.T ROAD, DHANDARI KALAN, LUDHIANA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1, RISHI NAGAR, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 705/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं/. Ita No. 705/Chd/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Avon Cycles Ltd., Vs The Pcit-I, G.T.Road, Dhandari Kalan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं/.Pan No: Aabca4140R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashish Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 Physical Hearing Order Per Laliet Kumar, Jm This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Pcit"), Dated 27.03.2025, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act") For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantive Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That Ld. Pcit -1, Ludhiana, Erred In Law & On Facts In Assuming The Jurisdiction To Invoke The Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Act To Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) When The Order Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. The Order Passed By Ld. Pcit(1), Ludhiana, Being Illegal Unjustified & Against The Provisions Of Section 263 May Be Annulled. 2. That Ld. Pcit (1) Erred In Law & On Facts In Setting Aside The Order Of Assessing Officer (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) By Applying The Different Approach On The Same Set Of Facts On The Issues Already Considered By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 263Section 69C

TDS deducted and deposited for relevant expenses debited to P&L account and also file copy of TDS return along

DCIT, TDS, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE GRAINS PROCUREMENT CORP. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 319/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

deducted TDS on whole payment. (iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S DISTRICT MANAGER PUNJAB, SANGRUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 1312/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

deducted TDS on whole payment. (iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred

ITO, CHANDIGARH vs. THE MANAGER DISTT. OFFICE,, MOHALI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 1241/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

deducted TDS on whole payment. (iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S DISTRICT MANAGER PUNJAB, SANGRUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 1313/CHANDI/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

deducted TDS on whole payment. (iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred

ITO (TDS), PATIALA vs. THE DISTT. MANAGER, FATEHGARH SAHIB

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 1310/CHANDI/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

deducted TDS on whole payment. (iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred

ITO (TDS), PATIALA vs. THE DISTT. MANAGER, FATEHGARH SAHIB

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 1309/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

deducted TDS on whole payment. (iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred

DCIT, TDS, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLY CORPN. LTD., SIRHIND

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 320/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

deducted TDS on whole payment. (iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred

DCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE GRAINS PROCUREMENT CORP. LTD., FATEHGARH SAHIB

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 316/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

deducted TDS on whole payment. (iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred

DCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE GRAINS PROCUREMENT CORP. LTD., FATEHGARH SAHIB

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 317/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

deducted TDS on whole payment. (iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred