BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

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.

109 results for “TDS”+ Section 192clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi767Bangalore616Mumbai543Indore393Chennai266Karnataka153Kolkata148Pune132Chandigarh109Raipur94Cochin88Jaipur83Visakhapatnam80Hyderabad79Ranchi60Ahmedabad52Cuttack51Lucknow47Nagpur32Jabalpur27Amritsar23Jodhpur20Agra14Rajkot14Telangana14Allahabad12Patna12Dehradun11Guwahati11Kerala8SC7Surat4Varanasi4Panaji4Orissa1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

TDS57Section 26346Section 143(3)36Addition to Income34Section 200A26Section 234E25Section 13(3)24Deduction24Section 27120Section 195

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 was deductible u/s 192 at the time of actual payment. The Ld.CIT(Appeals), after considering the assessees submissions, dismissed the appeal stating that the case of the assessee did not come within the purview of section

Showing 1–20 of 109 · Page 1 of 6

20
Double Taxation/DTAA18
Section 916

SH. SAURABH KAUSHIK,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 312/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal., CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 194ISection 195Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

192 and section 194P in Form No. 24Q; (b) Statement of deduction of tax under sections 193 to 196D (other than section 194P) in— (i) Form No. 27Q in respect of the deductee who is a non- resident not being a company or a foreign company or resident but not ordinarily resident; and (ii) Form No. 26Q in respect

STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 991/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(5)Section 133(6)Section 192Section 271C

section 192 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 2016-17, the Assessing Officer conducted TDS verification

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan
Section 195Section 40Section 9

TDS apply only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax" under the Income-tax Act. It is true that the judgment in Eli Lilly [2009] 312 ITR 225 was confined to section 192

DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1321/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan
Section 195Section 40Section 9

TDS apply only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax" under the Income-tax Act. It is true that the judgment in Eli Lilly [2009] 312 ITR 225 was confined to section 192

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 804/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan
Section 195Section 40Section 9

TDS apply only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax" under the Income-tax Act. It is true that the judgment in Eli Lilly [2009] 312 ITR 225 was confined to section 192

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 932/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri. D.S. Kalyan
Section 195Section 40Section 9

TDS apply only to those sums which are "chargeable to tax" under the Income-tax Act. It is true that the judgment in Eli Lilly [2009] 312 ITR 225 was confined to section 192

M/S PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 60/CHANDI/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Anil KhannaFor Respondent: Mrs. Mona Mohanty
Section 111ASection 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 6(1)(iii)

TDS section is Sec. 192 as commission for these non executive directors partakes the colour of salary. The definition of salary

PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/CHANDI/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Anil KhannaFor Respondent: Mrs. Mona Mohanty
Section 111ASection 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 6(1)(iii)

TDS section is Sec. 192 as commission for these non executive directors partakes the colour of salary. The definition of salary

SH. CHANDRESH JAIN PROP. M/S PRABHAT THREAD (INDIA) ,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 699/CHANDI/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 699/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Chandresh Jain, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Prop. M/S Prabhat Thread Ward 2(1), (India), Gali No. 3, Mahavir Ludhiana Colony, G.T. Road, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abdpj7395R अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

192. [(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2), any sum deducted under section 194-IA shall be paid to the credit of the Central Government within a period of [thirty days] from the end of the month in which the deduction is made and shall be accompanied by a challan-cum-statement in Form

DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 253/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh.K.M Gupta, Adv., Sh. NishantFor Respondent: Sh. Vikram Batra, CIT-DR
Section 144

192 of the Act, as against under section 195 of the Act. The tax has been deducted by the assessee under wrong provision. It is not a case where the assesse has not deducted tax at source at all. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.K. Tekriwal (supra) has upheld the decision of Tribunal

M/S DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PVT. LTD. ,TOANSA vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1592/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh.K.M Gupta, Adv., Sh. NishantFor Respondent: Sh. Vikram Batra, CIT-DR
Section 144

192 of the Act, as against under section 195 of the Act. The tax has been deducted by the assessee under wrong provision. It is not a case where the assesse has not deducted tax at source at all. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.K. Tekriwal (supra) has upheld the decision of Tribunal

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 375/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS for the relevant quarter of the A.Y. In the light of the above we deem it appropriate to admit the additional evidence now filed by the assessee before us. 15. Admittedly the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the ground no. 1 of the assessee’s ground while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee. Admittedly the other grounds raised

STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE(15875),PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 653/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS for the relevant quarter of the A.Y. In the light of the above we deem it appropriate to admit the additional evidence now filed by the assessee before us. 15. Admittedly the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the ground no. 1 of the assessee’s ground while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee. Admittedly the other grounds raised

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-1),, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 623/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS for the relevant quarter of the A.Y. In the light of the above we deem it appropriate to admit the additional evidence now filed by the assessee before us. 15. Admittedly the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the ground no. 1 of the assessee’s ground while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee. Admittedly the other grounds raised

STATE BANK OF INDIA,AMRITSAR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INDIA (IN-SITU), LUDHIANA

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 643/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS for the relevant quarter of the A.Y. In the light of the above we deem it appropriate to admit the additional evidence now filed by the assessee before us. 15. Admittedly the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the ground no. 1 of the assessee’s ground while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee. Admittedly the other grounds raised

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 622/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS for the relevant quarter of the A.Y. In the light of the above we deem it appropriate to admit the additional evidence now filed by the assessee before us. 15. Admittedly the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the ground no. 1 of the assessee’s ground while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee. Admittedly the other grounds raised

STATE BANK OF INDIA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 493/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS for the relevant quarter of the A.Y. In the light of the above we deem it appropriate to admit the additional evidence now filed by the assessee before us. 15. Admittedly the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the ground no. 1 of the assessee’s ground while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee. Admittedly the other grounds raised

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS for the relevant quarter of the A.Y. In the light of the above we deem it appropriate to admit the additional evidence now filed by the assessee before us. 15. Admittedly the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the ground no. 1 of the assessee’s ground while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee. Admittedly the other grounds raised

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 173/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS for the relevant quarter of the A.Y. In the light of the above we deem it appropriate to admit the additional evidence now filed by the assessee before us. 15. Admittedly the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the ground no. 1 of the assessee’s ground while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee. Admittedly the other grounds raised