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.

60 results for “TDS”+ Section 201clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,537 Mumbai1,507 Bangalore1,093 Chennai603 Kolkata414 Karnataka261 Jaipur162 Pune160 Raipur138 Nagpur131 Ahmedabad121 Hyderabad103 Indore101 Cochin64 Chandigarh60 Jodhpur45 Lucknow43 Rajkot37 Kerala28 Telangana27 Panaji26 Visakhapatnam22 Surat22 Agra18 Cuttack18 Patna17 SC13 Jabalpur10 Guwahati9 Ranchi8 Amritsar8 Dehradun7 Himachal Pradesh6 Varanasi4 Rajasthan3 Orissa3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 J&K1

Key Topics

TDS44 Section 26342 Section 20138 Section 194C31 Deduction31 Section 40A(3)30 Section 143(3)28 Section 201(1)26 Section 14819 Limitation/Time-bar

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)

section 201(1) r.w.s 201(1A) of the Act on account of non deduction of TDS under section 194C on freight

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3

19

Addition to Income16

VARDHMAN POLYTEX LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT(TDS), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1090/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. Though Notices Were Issued Electronically Through The E-Filing Portal, The Assessee Contended That Such Notices Were Neither Brought To Their Knowledge Nor Received Through Any Alternative Means Such As Email Or Physical Intimation. Consequently, The Appeal Was Dismissed Ex Parte. It Was Further Submitted That The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Is Legal In Nature & Does Not Require Examination Of Disputed Facts; Hence, The Matter May Be Adjudicated On Merits Without The Necessity Of A Remand To The Lower Authorities.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 44A

TDS statements (Form 26Q) filed with the Department. 4.2 The Ld. AO treated the assessee as an assessee-in-default under Section 201

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 was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

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 was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

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 was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

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 was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

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 was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

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

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 626/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

TDS was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

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 was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

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 was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

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 was deductible. The appellant argued that it complied with Section 10(5) and Rule 2B, as the designated travel destination was within India, and relied on judicial precedents and a clarificatory order from the Madras High Court (dated 16.02.2015) in Writ Petition No. 11991 of 2014. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, citing non-response to notices

M/S PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,HAMIRPUR vs. JT.CIT(OSD), TDS CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) and the same are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Alok Krishan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

TDS on interest on FDRs on deposits beyond the threshold limit of Rs. 10,000/- as so prescribed under Section 194A of the Act and accordingly the assessee was held to be assessee in default under section 201

M/S PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,HAMIRPUR vs. JT.CIT(OSD), TDS CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) and the same are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 305/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Alok Krishan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

TDS on interest on FDRs on deposits beyond the threshold limit of Rs. 10,000/- as so prescribed under Section 194A of the Act and accordingly the assessee was held to be assessee in default under section 201

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 127/CHANDI/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesseee Is Aggrieved By The Common Order Bearing Number Itba/Apl/M/250/2019- 20/1021304437(1) Dt. 25/11/2019 Of Cit(A) Shimla, H.P. Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2015 To 31/03/2016. 2. At The Outset The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Above Appeals Are Barred By Limitation By 02 Days.

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Doger, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 19iSection 201Section 201(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

section 201(1A) of the Act also cannot be levied Similar view were held by Hon'ble ITAT Pune bench "A", in case of Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank Ltd VS/ The Income Tax Officer (TDS

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 824/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in- charge of TDS

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 823/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in- charge of TDS

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 822/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in- charge of TDS

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIMLA, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 821/CHANDI/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in- charge of TDS

MUKESH MALHOTRA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 825/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in- charge of TDS

ACME BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 491/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Vs. The Dcit, Acme Builders Private Limited, Group Housing No. 10, बनाम Central Circe 1(1), Jlpl, Sector 91, Chandigarh Mohali Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaica9869Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 201Section 271

section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding a demand of Rs. 3,685/- on non deduction of TDS