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.

190 results for “TDS”+ Section 194C(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai685Delhi608Kolkata418Bangalore295Chennai190Jaipur85Hyderabad81Ahmedabad78Indore51Karnataka50Raipur44Rajkot29Pune26Cochin25Amritsar24Nagpur23Jodhpur23Chandigarh20Surat19Panaji18Patna18Visakhapatnam13Cuttack12Guwahati12Jabalpur11Lucknow9Allahabad9Kerala8Ranchi7Telangana6SC5Agra5Calcutta4Dehradun3Varanasi3Rajasthan2Gauhati1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 40134Section 194C68TDS63Disallowance62Section 143(3)50Addition to Income49Deduction47Section 26326Section 13925Section 201

GRAND ARK LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the\nstatistical purposes

ITA 862/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 191C(6)Section 194C(6)Section 40

TDS. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The assessee appealed to the tribunal.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) rejected additional evidence filed by the assessee without adequate justification. The Tribunal considered this evidence crucial for determining the applicability of Section 194C(6

GOPINATHAN,CUMBUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THENI

Showing 1–20 of 190 · Page 1 of 10

...
25
Section 194H24
Section 201(1)22

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

ITA 25/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 25/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Gopinathan, The Income Tax Officer, No. 37/4, L.F. Road, Opp. To Vs. Ward 1, Government Hospital, Cumbum, Theni. Theni District 625 516. [Pan:Ardpg2494G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Gopalan (Irs) Ret. Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Dated 12.11.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. Besides Challenging Confirmation Of Addition Of ₹. 4,66,455/- On Account Of Alleged Infringement Of Section 194C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Assessee Has Also Challenged The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act On The Pretext

For Appellant: Shri G. Gopalan (IRS) Ret. JCITFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

TDS as prescribed under section 194C of the Act. Accordingly, the balance amount of ₹.4,66,445/- available after disallowing 15% of the total expenses was also brought to tax under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and concluded the rectification order under section 154 of the Act dated 31.03.2019. On appeal against the order under section

M/S. JENIRICH AGRO PRODUCTS P. LTD.,,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1 , , TUTICORIN

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

ITA 2631/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2631/Chny/2019 "नधा%रणवष%/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Bharath, CITFor Respondent: 31.03.2021
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 263Section 40

TDS. The assessee has submitted before the ld PCIT that for this amount it has complied with the provisions of section 194C (6

VNC STEEL DISTRIBUTORS,,KARUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRICHY

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

ITA 1937/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1937/Chny/2024 & Stay Petition No: 40/Chny/2024 [In Ita No: 1937/Chny/2024)] िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vnc Steel Distributors, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Industrial Estate, V. Income Tax, S. Vellalapatti, Circle -1(1), Karur – 639 004. Trichy. [Pan: Aadfv-9137-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Abhinov Vaidyanathan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Abhinov Vaidyanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 194CSection 194HSection 2Section 250Section 253(1)Section 30Section 40

6. That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to consider the undertaking provided by various dealers in order to substantiate that no service has been provided to the Appellant nor have any goods been sold on behalf of the Appellant. Issue 2: Disallowance of Rs.251,293/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for non-deduction

MURUGAN OIL CORPORATION,SALEM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), SALEM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1501/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.: 1501/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40Section 80I

section 194C(6) of the Act. In the present facts and circumstances of the case the assessee has complied by collecting the declarations prescribed u/s.194C(6) of the Act from the Transport sub- contractors for having less than 10 ‘goods carriages’ and thereby the assessee has not deducted TDS

DCIT, MADURAI vs. POLYSPIN EXPORTS LIMITED, RAJAPALAYAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1890/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V Sri Krishnan, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

Section 194C(6) and 194C(7) of the Act are not independent and they have to be read together and the assessee has to file the From No. 26Q under the TDS

M/S. ROYAL IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

In the result we find that there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration, accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue fails and the same is dismissed

ITA 452/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:452/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Royal Impex, Dcit, New No. 77, Old No. 38, Vs. Central Circle – 2(4), Acharappan Street, Parrys, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaxfr-0248-N] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Jai V.Vairav, Ca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. Jai V.Vairav, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT
Section 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 37Section 40

Section 194C(6) of the Act, which exempts the requirement of TDS deduction. :-2-: ITA. No:452/Chny/2025 (iii) The CIT(A) failed

G.VANAJA,NAGERCOIL vs. ITO WARD-5, NAGERCOIL

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

ITA 413/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 413/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 194CSection 40

6,43,294/- to M/s. Surya Logistics and Rs. 31,56,804/- to M/s. SK Logistics. The assessee did not deduct TDS as per provisions of section 194C

ACIT, VELLORE vs. KRAMSKI STAMPING AND MOLDING INDIA PVT LTD., VELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 305/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.305/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Kramski Stamping & Income Tax, Molding India Pvt.Ltd Circle -1, Eraiyankadu Village, Anaicut Vellore. Block,Via Vrinchipuram, Vellore-632 104. Pan:Aadck3119L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 194CSection 40a

section 194C of the Act and consequently, the assessee need not to deduct TDS. Further, when the impugned payment does not come under the purview of TDS provisions, then no disallowance could be made u/s.40a(ia) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) further noted that the assessee has also proved the fact that payee has included the impugned amounts

KAVYA TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4 (4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for ay: 2013-14

ITA 1790/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: 17.09.2019
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

TDS not Expenses Amount claimed deducted u/s. Interest paid to 53,18,606/- 194A financial Institutions Payment to other travels 1,06,20,450/- 194C Audit fee 1,34,677/- 194J Professional fee 67,000/- 194J Vehicle Maintenance 57,84,247/- 194C Expenses Total 2,19,24,980/- The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act were

KAVYA TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4 (4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for ay: 2013-14

ITA 1791/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: 17.09.2019
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

TDS not Expenses Amount claimed deducted u/s. Interest paid to 53,18,606/- 194A financial Institutions Payment to other travels 1,06,20,450/- 194C Audit fee 1,34,677/- 194J Professional fee 67,000/- 194J Vehicle Maintenance 57,84,247/- 194C Expenses Total 2,19,24,980/- The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act were

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 376/CHNY/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial and services including data entry etc have been taken on outsourcing basis. This would amount to supply of personnel for rendering technical services and would attract tax. at deduction @ 10%. Failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 1644/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial and services including data entry etc have been taken on outsourcing basis. This would amount to supply of personnel for rendering technical services and would attract tax. at deduction @ 10%. Failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1414/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial and services including data entry etc have been taken on outsourcing basis. This would amount to supply of personnel for rendering technical services and would attract tax. at deduction @ 10%. Failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1415/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial and services including data entry etc have been taken on outsourcing basis. This would amount to supply of personnel for rendering technical services and would attract tax. at deduction @ 10%. Failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 2804/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial and services including data entry etc have been taken on outsourcing basis. This would amount to supply of personnel for rendering technical services and would attract tax. at deduction @ 10%. Failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 377/CHNY/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial and services including data entry etc have been taken on outsourcing basis. This would amount to supply of personnel for rendering technical services and would attract tax. at deduction @ 10%. Failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 755/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial and services including data entry etc have been taken on outsourcing basis. This would amount to supply of personnel for rendering technical services and would attract tax. at deduction @ 10%. Failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 754/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial and services including data entry etc have been taken on outsourcing basis. This would amount to supply of personnel for rendering technical services and would attract tax. at deduction @ 10%. Failed to deduct the TDS, the assessee

ITO CORPORATE WARD 4(1), CHENNAI vs. MALAR ENERGY & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1417/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Malar Energy & Infrastructure Corporate Ward 4(1), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., No. 57, Pantheon Road, Chennai 600 034. Egmore, Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aagcm5674F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition/Disallowance Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] With Respect To The Tds Default Under Section 194C & 194H Of The Act To ₹.7,29,898/- Instead Of ₹.3,03,28,445/- By Considering Fresh Evidence In Violation Of Rule 46A Of The It Rules.

For Appellant: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

TDS default under section 194C and 194H of the Act to ₹.7,29,898/- instead of ₹.3,03,28,445/- without obtaining any remand report from the Assessing Officer is in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file