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.

19 results for “TDS”+ Section 194Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi57Mumbai52Chennai19Kolkata12Karnataka8Bangalore7Ahmedabad4Pune3SC3Jaipur2Lucknow1Amritsar1Rajkot1Telangana1Hyderabad1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 4021Disallowance16Section 143(3)15Section 194H10Section 14A8TDS8Section 374Section 194C4Deduction4Survey u/s 133A

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
4
Section 1483
Section 1542

TDS u/s.194C of the Act. Section 194H of the ITA states that "Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying, on or after the 1st day of June, 2001, to a resident, any income by way of commission (not being insurance commission referred to in section 194D

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALEM vs. GOVINDA RAJULU SRINIVASAN, SALEM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1245/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.C. Yamuna, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 40A(3)

TDS Statement - 50780 Insurance commission (Section 194D) The assessee had filed his return of income on 30.11.2014 admitting total income

DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1885/Chny/2017 & 665/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2013-14 Doosan Power Systems India The Jcit / Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle -1(1), 16Th Floor, Dlf Square, Chennai. Jacaranda Marg, Near Nh-8, Dlf Phase-Ii, Gurgaon – 122 002. Pan: Aabcb 5946J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154

194D the provisions of section 195(2) make the intention of the Legislature very clear that what is required to be considered for the purpose of tax deduction at source under section 195(1) is not wholly the sum paid to any persons is not wholly chargeable under the provisions of the Act, the application of section 195 is ousted

DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA P.LTD,HARYANA vs. JCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 665/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1885/Chny/2017 & 665/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2013-14 Doosan Power Systems India The Jcit / Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle -1(1), 16Th Floor, Dlf Square, Chennai. Jacaranda Marg, Near Nh-8, Dlf Phase-Ii, Gurgaon – 122 002. Pan: Aabcb 5946J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154

194D the provisions of section 195(2) make the intention of the Legislature very clear that what is required to be considered for the purpose of tax deduction at source under section 195(1) is not wholly the sum paid to any persons is not wholly chargeable under the provisions of the Act, the application of section 195 is ousted

KRISHNAVEL UMAMAHESWARI,MADURAI vs. ACIT, NCC-1,, MADURAI

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

ITA 1299/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1299/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Krishnavel Umamaheswari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 10E, Nallamadan Koil Lane, Income Tax, North Masi Street, Madurai 625 001. Non Corporate Circle 1, Madurai. [Pan:Aaopu8528K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Raised 2 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 194DSection 194H

TDS under section 194D of the Act has been deducted. From the replies of the assessee, the 4 I.T.A. No.1299/Chny/25

MANIMUTHU,DINDIGUL vs. ITO WARD 1, DINDIGAL

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1450/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 1450/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 P. Manimuthu, Income Tax Officer, No.1, A.K. Traders, Shanmuga V. Ward -1, Towers, Dindigul. Dindigul Road, Vadamadurai, Dindigul District – 624 802. [Pan: Aohpm-0872-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Andichamy, Ca : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Andichamy, CA
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194DSection 194HSection 40

TDS is deductible Further ,as per Section:194H:Commission or brokerage: Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying, on or after the 1st day of June, 2001, to a resident, any income by way of commission (not being insurance commission referred to in section 194D

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years

ITA 1669/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1668 To 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 To 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- V. M/S.Royal Sundaram – Of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcr 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Sr.St. Counsel Assessee By : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, Adv. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

For Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Swaminathan
Section 14ASection 37Section 40

TDS u/s.195 if the benefits arrived out of the above expenditure is utilized in India. 7.1. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) in respect of commission payments for the receipt of reinsurance premium. 7.2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has treated the impugned payment as commission u/s.194H, thereby invoking

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years

ITA 1670/CHNY/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1668 To 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 To 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- V. M/S.Royal Sundaram – Of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcr 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Sr.St. Counsel Assessee By : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, Adv. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

For Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Swaminathan
Section 14ASection 37Section 40

TDS u/s.195 if the benefits arrived out of the above expenditure is utilized in India. 7.1. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) in respect of commission payments for the receipt of reinsurance premium. 7.2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has treated the impugned payment as commission u/s.194H, thereby invoking

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years

ITA 1367/CHNY/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1668 To 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 To 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- V. M/S.Royal Sundaram – Of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcr 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Sr.St. Counsel Assessee By : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, Adv. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

For Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Swaminathan
Section 14ASection 37Section 40

TDS u/s.195 if the benefits arrived out of the above expenditure is utilized in India. 7.1. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) in respect of commission payments for the receipt of reinsurance premium. 7.2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has treated the impugned payment as commission u/s.194H, thereby invoking

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all assessment years

ITA 1668/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1668 To 1670/Chny/2011 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 To 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- V. M/S.Royal Sundaram – Of Income Tax, Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcr 7106 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Sr.St. Counsel Assessee By : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, Adv. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

For Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Swaminathan
Section 14ASection 37Section 40

TDS u/s.195 if the benefits arrived out of the above expenditure is utilized in India. 7.1. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) in respect of commission payments for the receipt of reinsurance premium. 7.2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has treated the impugned payment as commission u/s.194H, thereby invoking

M/S SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 419/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

TDS) while making aforesaid payment . Our attention was drawn to para 6.8 of the appellate order passed by learned CIT(A). 8.2. The Ld.CIT-DR on the other hand drew our attention to para No.6.5 of the Ld.CIT(A) appellate order. He drew our attention to clause (e) of the distribution agreement. It was submitted that this clause was brought

M/S SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 420/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

TDS) while making aforesaid payment . Our attention was drawn to para 6.8 of the appellate order passed by learned CIT(A). 8.2. The Ld.CIT-DR on the other hand drew our attention to para No.6.5 of the Ld.CIT(A) appellate order. He drew our attention to clause (e) of the distribution agreement. It was submitted that this clause was brought

M/S SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 422/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

TDS) while making aforesaid payment . Our attention was drawn to para 6.8 of the appellate order passed by learned CIT(A). 8.2. The Ld.CIT-DR on the other hand drew our attention to para No.6.5 of the Ld.CIT(A) appellate order. He drew our attention to clause (e) of the distribution agreement. It was submitted that this clause was brought

M/S SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 421/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

TDS) while making aforesaid payment . Our attention was drawn to para 6.8 of the appellate order passed by learned CIT(A). 8.2. The Ld.CIT-DR on the other hand drew our attention to para No.6.5 of the Ld.CIT(A) appellate order. He drew our attention to clause (e) of the distribution agreement. It was submitted that this clause was brought

DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 465/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

TDS) while making aforesaid payment . Our attention was drawn to para 6.8 of the appellate order passed by learned CIT(A). 8.2. The Ld.CIT-DR on the other hand drew our attention to para No.6.5 of the Ld.CIT(A) appellate order. He drew our attention to clause (e) of the distribution agreement. It was submitted that this clause was brought

DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 466/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

TDS) while making aforesaid payment . Our attention was drawn to para 6.8 of the appellate order passed by learned CIT(A). 8.2. The Ld.CIT-DR on the other hand drew our attention to para No.6.5 of the Ld.CIT(A) appellate order. He drew our attention to clause (e) of the distribution agreement. It was submitted that this clause was brought

DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 467/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

TDS) while making aforesaid payment . Our attention was drawn to para 6.8 of the appellate order passed by learned CIT(A). 8.2. The Ld.CIT-DR on the other hand drew our attention to para No.6.5 of the Ld.CIT(A) appellate order. He drew our attention to clause (e) of the distribution agreement. It was submitted that this clause was brought

DCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 468/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

TDS) while making aforesaid payment . Our attention was drawn to para 6.8 of the appellate order passed by learned CIT(A). 8.2. The Ld.CIT-DR on the other hand drew our attention to para No.6.5 of the Ld.CIT(A) appellate order. He drew our attention to clause (e) of the distribution agreement. It was submitted that this clause was brought

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. TRUSTED AEROSPACE ENGINEERING (P) LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 473/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 26.04.2023
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS obligations under Sec 195 arises only when the payment is chargeable to tax in the hands of non-resident in this regard. Further, the charge of income-tax under sub-section (1) of section 4 is on the total income of every person for a previous year at the rates enacted in the Central Act. In the case