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.

12 results for “TDS”+ Section 194Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai703 Delhi651 Kolkata440 Bangalore297 Chennai190 Jaipur85 Hyderabad84 Ahmedabad78 Indore51 Karnataka50 Raipur44 Rajkot30 Pune27 Cochin25 Amritsar25 Nagpur23 Jodhpur23 Chandigarh21 Patna19 Surat19 Panaji18 Visakhapatnam14 Guwahati12 Cuttack12 Jabalpur11 Ranchi10 Allahabad9 Lucknow9 Kerala8 Calcutta7 Telangana7 SC5 Agra5 Dehradun4 Varanasi3 Rajasthan2 Orissa1 Gauhati1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)12 TDS11 Section 20110 Addition to Income10 Section 69C8 Section 406 Section 2506 Section 194C6 Natural Justice6 Section 143(3)

TRIDENT INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), GUWAHATI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 10(26)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 250Section 40Section 69C

Section 194C, which deals with TDS on payments to contractors, including transport contractors. (Section 194C(6)), No TDS is required

TRENISTONE D SANGMA,AMPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - GOALPARA

4

Survey u/s 133A4

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

ITA 285/GTY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ashok Sharma, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha, JCIT

Section 10(26)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

Section-Rs. 2,07,198/- - 194A) TDS-194C Payment to Rs. 3,12,257/- Contractor (194C) 3. Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated

RAMKY ECI JV,TELANGANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 159/GTY/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Md. Afjal, AdvocateFor Respondent: I. Gyaneshori Devi, JCIT

Section 194CSection 194HSection 201(1)

TDS-1, Guwahati. Considering the material gathered during the course of survey, the learned Assessing Officer assumed that assessee Joint Venture failed to deduct tax as per the provisions of section 194C

RAMKY ECI JV,TELEGANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 160/GTY/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Md. Afjal, AdvocateFor Respondent: I. Gyaneshori Devi, JCIT

Section 194CSection 194HSection 201(1)

TDS-1, Guwahati. Considering the material gathered during the course of survey, the learned Assessing Officer assumed that assessee Joint Venture failed to deduct tax as per the provisions of section 194C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. DHAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SHILLONG

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

ITA 39/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 69C

194C, who had not filed their income tax returns. The tax authorities sought details such as ledger information, names, PANs, and current addresses of these individuals. The assessee did not provide a satisfactory response to the initial notices and reminders regarding large payments made to individuals. Further notices were issued under section 142(1) to which the assessee responded, providing

PACPL BIPL JV,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF I.T., CPC, BENGALURU (JURISDICTIONAL A.O. - ITO, WARD-3(3), GUWAHATI

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

ITA 18/GTY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Pacpl Bipl Jv Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Jurisdictional A.O. – Ito, 8Th Floor, Unit Ii, Sethi Trust Ward-3(3), Guwahati. Building, G.S. Road, Vs. Bhangagarh, Guwahati, Assam- 781005. Pan: Aadap 9047 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Uttam Kumar Borthakur, Advocate Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A) For Short Hereafter] Has Erred In Law & In Fact In Not Adjudicating Upon Ground No. 1 Of Appeal Before Him By Holding It To Be General In Nature Though The Determination Of Total Income At Rs. 39846190/- Under Section 143(1), Instead Of Returned Income Of Nil & Seeking Carry Forward Of Current Business Of (-) Rs. 14640/-, Was Contrary To The Relevant Materials, Namely, The Facts & Materials Showing That The Appellant Was Not An Assessee- In- Default Within The Meaning Of First Proviso To Section 201, As Read With Second Proviso To Clause (Ia) Of Sub-Section (A) Of Section 40 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Act For Short Hereafter)

For Appellant: Shri Uttam Kumar Borthakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 250Section 40

TDS u/s 194C of the Act. The Appellant has claimed that they have filed appeal against the assessment order. I find that the appeal of the Appellant filed against scrutiny assessment order is pending before this office. Further, the Appellant has not produced the evidence to show that the payee has disclosed the relevant receipts in the return of income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. SHRI PARAN JYOTI SAIKIA, GUWAHATI

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

ITA 125/GTY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 69C

194C of the Act with two persons who have not filed return of income” followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Page 2 of 10 I.T.A. No.: 125/GTY/2020 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Paran Jyoti Saikia. 4. The assessee was asked to furnish the details about the contract expenses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA vs. KALIKA JEWELLERS, AGARTALA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 85/GTY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 85/Gty/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Kalika Jewellers Tax, Circle-Agartala Vs H.G.B. Road Agartala Tripura (W) - 799001 [Pan: Aafj5678K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Modi, Fca Revenue By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Shillong, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 03/06/2016, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2010-11, On The Following Grounds:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs.8,81,708/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,02,36,806/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Undisclosed Stock. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.16,20,750/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Making Charges U/S 40(A)(Ia). 4. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.1,34,640/- & Rs.83,385/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Advertisement Expense U/S 40(A)(Ia).” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In Jewellery Business. Income Of Rs.56,80,854/- Was Declared In The Return Filed On 23/09/2010. The Case Was Manually Selected For Scrutiny Followed By Service Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Of The Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer Called For Various

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40

TDS on Advertisement Net Total Income 4,91,97,800/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who made detailed submissions and most of the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted and assessee partly succeeded. 4. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The ld. D/R, vehemently supported the order

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 17/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT

Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 204Section 4Section 4(1)

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 16/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT

Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 204Section 4Section 4(1)

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 15/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT

Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 204Section 4Section 4(1)

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 14/GTY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT

Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 204Section 4Section 4(1)

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed