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.

76 results for “TDS”+ Section 10(108)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi450Mumbai400Bangalore180Indore134Karnataka112Chennai108Kolkata95Hyderabad76Chandigarh73Cochin58Ahmedabad47Jaipur43Raipur33Pune26Agra22Cuttack19Nagpur16Lucknow14Visakhapatnam13Rajkot13Patna10Surat9Telangana9Amritsar6Guwahati5Jodhpur2Allahabad2SC2Calcutta1Jabalpur1Varanasi1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 153C120Addition to Income73Search & Seizure61Section 143(3)47Section 139(1)46Section 13244Section 6943Disallowance24Limitation/Time-bar23Cash Deposit

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92CSection 92E

TDS to the tune of Rs. 30,211/- without assigning any reasons therefor. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds during the course of hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in manufacturing of Clinker and Ordinary Portland Cement. The assessee, being the third largest cement

Showing 1–20 of 76 · Page 1 of 4

20
Section 6818
Section 26315

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1632/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115Section 115JSection 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

TDS was applicable on the same. However, in the present facts of the Appellant, the issue is not whether the payment for obtaining licenses of software and software maintenance would be royalty or not and whether there would be any tax required to be deducted at source. The issue here is whether the expenditure incurred would be revenue or capital

RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Advocate Prathishta Singh &For Respondent: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

108 and that some of the items of expenditure were not apportioned on appropriate basis/ incorrectly allowed, and thus resulted In short computation of income of the taxable units, besides excess claim of exemption u/s 10B. The same are detailed as follows: a) It Is seen that 'other income' credited to P & L amounting to Rs.46,37,99,429/- included

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. NEW CLUB, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 958/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 69A

TDS Statement (Section 194C) - Payments to contractors that the assessee is in receipt of Rs.79725/- during the assessment year under consideration. In this connection assessee replied that " Transactions were entered into for carried out of business operation." The assessee has not filed any supporting documentary evidences in this regard such as vouchers, bills, etc. The assessee itself accepts the transaction

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1514/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

TDS details, it seems to be that the assessee is a subcontractor handling the works on contractual agreement and it is known that deduction u/ s 80IA is not eligible for contractors. Therefore, the assessee has filed revised return and claimed deduction u/s 80IA as an afterthought. It is confirmed from the unsecured loans that all are mobilization advances

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1515/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

TDS details, it seems to be that the assessee is a subcontractor handling the works on contractual agreement and it is known that deduction u/ s 80IA is not eligible for contractors. Therefore, the assessee has filed revised return and claimed deduction u/s 80IA as an afterthought. It is confirmed from the unsecured loans that all are mobilization advances

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 376/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Y V Bhanu NarayanFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 148Section 2(13)Section 54F

108 of the material paper book) held that: "It is well settled that even a single transaction of purchase and sale, though outside the assessee's line of business, may constitute an adventure in the nature of trade, provided the transaction bears the essential indicia or elements of trade. So then, unless there be indicia of trade or of trading

SUJATHA SUNKARA BY L/R GANGA RAO SUNKARA,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 3, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1844/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1844/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Ganga Rao Sunkara L/R Of Sujatha The Income Tax Officer, Sunkara, Nizamabad. Vs. Ward-3, Pin – 503 202 Nizamabad. Pan Acxpv6532H Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri H Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30.01.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri H Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115B

Section 115BBE. 10. Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the assessee received commission of Rs.9,58,522 (Gross) and net income was a sum of Rs.3,16,210. 11. Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal despite filing all the relevant documents and he confirmed the assessment order on the ground, that the assessee ought to have filed

SATYAM VENTURE ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECUNDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 192/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 192/Hyd/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyam Venture Assistant Commissioner Engineering Services Vs. Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(2), Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Aafcs3287D] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri E.V. Sri Krishna, ARFor Respondent: Ms. L. Sunitha Rao, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

108 (Bom), wherein the amendment to Section 92B of the Act by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01/04/2002 was considered. Basing on the view taken in a number of decisions of the Tribunal of various Benches, learned TPO held that it is incumbent upon the taxpayer to separately benchmark the arm’s length price of the international transaction

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. DIVI'S LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 414/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Divi’S Laboratories Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacd 6745J (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anil S Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Anil S
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

108,74,75,230/- as against the returned income at Rs. 1,05,86,26,470/-. 4. The issue before us is, while computing the total assessed income, tax and interest, AO has calculated the tax due after charging surcharge and education cess, then, allowed the tax credit available u/s 115JAA. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 300/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

TDS. However, the ld.CIT(A) had wrongly ignored the above said fact and had relied upon the statement of Shri Kolla Madhava Reddy for the purpose of making addition in the hands of the assessee. Reference of Villa Nos.63 and 64 : 35. The ld.CIT(A), at pages 77 to 83 of his order had extensively referred to the cash paid

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 322/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

TDS. However, the ld.CIT(A) had wrongly ignored the above said fact and had relied upon the statement of Shri Kolla Madhava Reddy for the purpose of making addition in the hands of the assessee. Reference of Villa Nos.63 and 64 : 35. The ld.CIT(A), at pages 77 to 83 of his order had extensively referred to the cash paid

SIVA PRASAD REDDY BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 301/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

TDS. However, the ld.CIT(A) had wrongly ignored the above said fact and had relied upon the statement of Shri Kolla Madhava Reddy for the purpose of making addition in the hands of the assessee. Reference of Villa Nos.63 and 64 : 35. The ld.CIT(A), at pages 77 to 83 of his order had extensively referred to the cash paid

NAGA LAKSHMI BUCHEPALLI,CHIMAKURTHY vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 323/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

TDS. However, the ld.CIT(A) had wrongly ignored the above said fact and had relied upon the statement of Shri Kolla Madhava Reddy for the purpose of making addition in the hands of the assessee. Reference of Villa Nos.63 and 64 : 35. The ld.CIT(A), at pages 77 to 83 of his order had extensively referred to the cash paid

RAMESH CHANDRA MAJITHIA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 302/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

TDS. However, the ld.CIT(A) had wrongly ignored the above said fact and had relied upon the statement of Shri Kolla Madhava Reddy for the purpose of making addition in the hands of the assessee. Reference of Villa Nos.63 and 64 : 35. The ld.CIT(A), at pages 77 to 83 of his order had extensively referred to the cash paid

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 29/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 Tax paid u/s 140A 0 Regular Tax Paid 0 TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 0 Refund Issued U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc = 2,93,41,470/- Balance tax payable Round off 8. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of assessee after

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 16/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 Tax paid u/s 140A 0 Regular Tax Paid 0 TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 0 Refund Issued U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc = 2,93,41,470/- Balance tax payable Round off 8. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of assessee after

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 15/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 Tax paid u/s 140A 0 Regular Tax Paid 0 TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 0 Refund Issued U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc = 2,93,41,470/- Balance tax payable Round off 8. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of assessee after

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 27/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 Tax paid u/s 140A 0 Regular Tax Paid 0 TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 0 Refund Issued U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc = 2,93,41,470/- Balance tax payable Round off 8. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of assessee after

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 53/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

TDS = 0 Advance tax paid = 0 Tax paid u/s 140A 0 Regular Tax Paid 0 TOTAL TAXES PAID = 0 0 Refund Issued U/s 143(1)/143(3)/154/etc = 2,93,41,470/- Balance tax payable Round off 8. Feeling aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of assessee after