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.

36 results for “TDS”+ Section 23clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,969 Delhi2,869 Bangalore1,561 Chennai1,039 Kolkata670 Ahmedabad494 Pune438 Hyderabad424 Indore373 Cochin318 Jaipur284 Chandigarh257 Raipur230 Karnataka199 Surat140 Nagpur108 Visakhapatnam99 Rajkot98 Cuttack87 Lucknow72 Ranchi51 Amritsar48 Jodhpur41 Dehradun38 Jabalpur36 Guwahati36 Agra34 Allahabad32 Patna26 Telangana26 Panaji25 SC15 Varanasi11 Kerala10 Calcutta8 Uttarakhand2 Orissa1 Rajasthan1 Himachal Pradesh1 Punjab & Haryana1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 153C29 Section 234E28 Addition to Income27 Disallowance19 Section 25017 TDS16 Section 143(3)15 Section 44A15 Section 26314 Depreciation

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

23,72,500/- were claimed to be exempt from TDS I.T.A. No. 254/GTY/2024 Trident Infraprojects Private Limited under Section 10(26) of the Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. M/S. DHAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SHILLONG

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

14

Section 201(1)12

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 181/GTY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 15Section 192Section 194HSection 197(2)Section 40

23-03-2020 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Shillong [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2017-18. AY 2017-18 Dhar Construction Co., . Page 2 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds:- 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deducting that

GOLDEN ARROW TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG

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

ITA 233/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 194JSection 40

23,364/- by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Id. AO has made the disallowance arbitrarily and without bringing on record any material to show that such payment to a person exceeded Rs. 1,80,0001- during the relevant year.” 3. Coming to ground no. 2 i.e disallowance

ASSISTANT GARRISON ENGINEERING INDEPENDENT AGARTALA,AGARTALA vs. DCIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 172, 173 & 177/GTY/2020 are allowed while ITA

ITA 173/GTY/2020[2014-15(FY 2013-14;Q-1-26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 172/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 &

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. I Gyaneshori Devi, JCIT

Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. 24. If the facts

ASSISTANT GARRISON ENGINEERING INDEPENDENT AGARTALA,AGARTALA vs. DCIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 172, 173 & 177/GTY/2020 are allowed while ITA

ITA 172/GTY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 172/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 &

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. I Gyaneshori Devi, JCIT

Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. 24. If the facts

ASSISTANT GARRISON ENGINEERING INDEPENDENT AGARTALA,AGARTALA vs. DCIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 172, 173 & 177/GTY/2020 are allowed while ITA

ITA 177/GTY/2020[2014-15 (FY 2013-14; Q-2-26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 172/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 &

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. I Gyaneshori Devi, JCIT

Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. 24. If the facts

ASSISTANT GARRISON ENGINEERING INDEPENDENT AGARTALA,AGARTALA vs. DCIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 172, 173 & 177/GTY/2020 are allowed while ITA

ITA 174/GTY/2020[2015-16 (FY 2014-15; Q-4-24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 172/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 &

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. I Gyaneshori Devi, JCIT

Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. 24. If the facts

SAUQUL ISLAM,NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 235/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.235/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri T. Hunar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 44A

TDS provisions, details of payments of tax, cess, duty, fees, compliance with provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, maintenance of inventory records etc. The appellant would accordingly get a relief of 3% of the net profit rate. Thus, out of the total addition of Rs.15,67,258/-, an addition of Rs.896459/- (i.e. 5% of Rs.2,23

SHRI LIKHA SAAYA,NIRJILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR., LAKHIMPUR.

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

ITA 49/GTY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumarand Manmohan Dasita Nos.49 & 50/Gty/2021 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Likha Saaya S/O. Shri Likha Vs. Ito, Ward-North, Lakhimpur Heli, P-Sector, P.O. Nirjuli, Borah Complex, D.K.Road, North District Papumpare, Arunachal Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam- Pradesh-791109 787001 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sarala Agarwal. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Jcit

For Appellant: Sarala Agarwal. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 10(26)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

TDS certificate. The Assessing Officer also noted that the income of the assessee is exempt from tax on the ground of being a Member of Scheduled Tribe of Arunachal Pradesh. The Assessing Officer also estimated the transport income out of total transport contract receipts, at Rs.1,34,40,000/- after deducting all expenses by applying flat rate of 10%, which

SHRI LIKHA SAAYA,NIRJILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR., LAKHIMPUR.

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

ITA 50/GTY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumarand Manmohan Dasita Nos.49 & 50/Gty/2021 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Likha Saaya S/O. Shri Likha Vs. Ito, Ward-North, Lakhimpur Heli, P-Sector, P.O. Nirjuli, Borah Complex, D.K.Road, North District Papumpare, Arunachal Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam- Pradesh-791109 787001 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sarala Agarwal. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Jcit

For Appellant: Sarala Agarwal. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 10(26)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

TDS certificate. The Assessing Officer also noted that the income of the assessee is exempt from tax on the ground of being a Member of Scheduled Tribe of Arunachal Pradesh. The Assessing Officer also estimated the transport income out of total transport contract receipts, at Rs.1,34,40,000/- after deducting all expenses by applying flat rate of 10%, which

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 40/GTY/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati03 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153C

23. Though before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a very detailed submission on this point also and relied upon a large number of decisions starting from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO, Calcutta & Ors –vs.- Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati03 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153C

23. Though before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a very detailed submission on this point also and relied upon a large number of decisions starting from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO, Calcutta & Ors –vs.- Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC), judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 45/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

23. The ITAT in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO, Mumbai, 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83 and has propounded the following broader principle to judge the action of CIT taken under section

M/S. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 418/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

23. The ITAT in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO, Mumbai, 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83 and has propounded the following broader principle to judge the action of CIT taken under section

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

23,09,04,594/- was debited as sub-contract expenses and out of the aforesaid amount, the assessee consider that TDS required to be deducted for an amount of Rs. 19,66,52,948/-. However, doing 3 PACPL BIPL JV A.Y. 2018-19 so the assessee deducted tax at source of Rs. 12,75,673/- on payment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. THE MEGHALAYA COOPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED, SHILLONG

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross

ITA 50/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 36Section 40

TDS on account of certificates u/s 10(26) of the Act and also carry out certain other verifications, which is tantamount to setting aside the order to the Ld. AO for verification and necessary action, which power is not available to the Ld. CIT(A) now and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction. The relevant extract from

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)

23,80,500 31,74,000 10,58,060 Kohima 6409 K TOTAL: 38,21,040 62,44,455 75,10,020 25,43,426 5. TDS liability disputed in appeal (plus interest separately) 3,82,104 6,24,446 7,51,002 2,54,343 4.2. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who decided

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)

23,80,500 31,74,000 10,58,060 Kohima 6409 K TOTAL: 38,21,040 62,44,455 75,10,020 25,43,426 5. TDS liability disputed in appeal (plus interest separately) 3,82,104 6,24,446 7,51,002 2,54,343 4.2. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who decided

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)

23,80,500 31,74,000 10,58,060 Kohima 6409 K TOTAL: 38,21,040 62,44,455 75,10,020 25,43,426 5. TDS liability disputed in appeal (plus interest separately) 3,82,104 6,24,446 7,51,002 2,54,343 4.2. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who decided

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)

23,80,500 31,74,000 10,58,060 Kohima 6409 K TOTAL: 38,21,040 62,44,455 75,10,020 25,43,426 5. TDS liability disputed in appeal (plus interest separately) 3,82,104 6,24,446 7,51,002 2,54,343 4.2. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who decided