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.

738 results for “TDS”+ Section 10(14)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,816Mumbai3,754Bangalore2,000Chennai1,366Kolkata876Pune797Hyderabad738Ahmedabad709Indore610Jaipur445Raipur396Chandigarh372Cochin339Karnataka272Nagpur248Visakhapatnam245Surat236Cuttack187Rajkot150Amritsar101Lucknow100Jabalpur93Dehradun62Jodhpur58Ranchi53Agra52Patna43Allahabad43Panaji42Guwahati41Telangana33SC19Varanasi12Kerala12Calcutta10Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Uttarakhand3Orissa2J&K2Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 153C103Addition to Income66Section 13242Section 143(3)37Disallowance37TDS34Section 14831Section 153A30Search & Seizure29Deduction

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

14,28,568/-. 4a. By erroneously recalculating and re-computing the market value at a rate which is contrary to the provisions of section 80IA(8) and mandates of judicial authorities. 4b. By rejecting the comparable market rate for procurement of power from Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) and determining the Arm’s Length Price

Showing 1–20 of 738 · Page 1 of 37

...
28
Section 14726
Section 4026

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 216/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

section 80IB(10) of the Act. In other words, the AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow pro-rata deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) in respect of project 'Kumar Padmalaya'. The grounds raised

JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1139/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

section 80IB(10) of the Act. In other words, the AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow pro-rata deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) in respect of project 'Kumar Padmalaya'. The grounds raised

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 215/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

section 80IB(10) of the Act. In other words, the AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow pro-rata deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) in respect of project 'Kumar Padmalaya'. The grounds raised

JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1140/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

section 80IB(10) of the Act. In other words, the AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow pro-rata deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) in respect of project 'Kumar Padmalaya'. The grounds raised

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ENGINEERS REDDY P. LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1485/HYD/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

section 80IB(10) of the Act. In other words, the AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow pro-rata deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) in respect of project 'Kumar Padmalaya'. The grounds raised

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ENGINEERS REDDY P. LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1484/HYD/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

section 80IB(10) of the Act. In other words, the AO cannot reject the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the entire project for non-completion of the few buildings. We therefore set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow pro-rata deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) in respect of project 'Kumar Padmalaya'. The grounds raised

TARAKARAMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 321/HYD/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12A

TDS provisions. The. main members of the society Sri Ramesh Babu.N, Sri Raja Babu.N, were found to be in possession of unaccounted cash which was seized. Considering all these aspects the group cases were centralized with ACIT, CC-2(4) to conduct coordinated investigation. :- 7 -: ITA Nos. 318, 319, 320 & 321/Hyd/2020 CIT(E) amongst others PCITs passed order u/s.127 assigning

CHURCH EDUCATINAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 319/HYD/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12A

TDS provisions. The. main members of the society Sri Ramesh Babu.N, Sri Raja Babu.N, were found to be in possession of unaccounted cash which was seized. Considering all these aspects the group cases were centralized with ACIT, CC-2(4) to conduct coordinated investigation. :- 7 -: ITA Nos. 318, 319, 320 & 321/Hyd/2020 CIT(E) amongst others PCITs passed order u/s.127 assigning

KARSHAK VIDYA PARISHAD ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 320/HYD/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12A

TDS provisions. The. main members of the society Sri Ramesh Babu.N, Sri Raja Babu.N, were found to be in possession of unaccounted cash which was seized. Considering all these aspects the group cases were centralized with ACIT, CC-2(4) to conduct coordinated investigation. :- 7 -: ITA Nos. 318, 319, 320 & 321/Hyd/2020 CIT(E) amongst others PCITs passed order u/s.127 assigning

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 318/HYD/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12A

TDS provisions. The. main members of the society Sri Ramesh Babu.N, Sri Raja Babu.N, were found to be in possession of unaccounted cash which was seized. Considering all these aspects the group cases were centralized with ACIT, CC-2(4) to conduct coordinated investigation. :- 7 -: ITA Nos. 318, 319, 320 & 321/Hyd/2020 CIT(E) amongst others PCITs passed order u/s.127 assigning

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 682/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

10% to 14% for a period of 1 year to 4 years. Therefore, the assessee submitted that interest paid on customer advances was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee and thus, allowable as a deduction. 7. The AO, however, was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee. According to the AO, although

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 681/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

10% to 14% for a period of 1 year to 4 years. Therefore, the assessee submitted that interest paid on customer advances was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee and thus, allowable as a deduction. 7. The AO, however, was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee. According to the AO, although

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 685/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

10% to 14% for a period of 1 year to 4 years. Therefore, the assessee submitted that interest paid on customer advances was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee and thus, allowable as a deduction. 7. The AO, however, was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee. According to the AO, although

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 684/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

10% to 14% for a period of 1 year to 4 years. Therefore, the assessee submitted that interest paid on customer advances was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee and thus, allowable as a deduction. 7. The AO, however, was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee. According to the AO, although

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 683/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

10% to 14% for a period of 1 year to 4 years. Therefore, the assessee submitted that interest paid on customer advances was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee and thus, allowable as a deduction. 7. The AO, however, was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee. According to the AO, although

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 281/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

14. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, an amount of Rs. 13,02,340/- @ 30% of total expenditure incurred towards payment to subcontractors, Shankarapally and Bathini Infra on the basis of the seized material without

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 282/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

14. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, an amount of Rs. 13,02,340/- @ 30% of total expenditure incurred towards payment to subcontractors, Shankarapally and Bathini Infra on the basis of the seized material without

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 280/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

14. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, an amount of Rs. 13,02,340/- @ 30% of total expenditure incurred towards payment to subcontractors, Shankarapally and Bathini Infra on the basis of the seized material without

SRI SAI CONSTRUCTION CO,NIZAMABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

10% expenditure for want of evidences, but, the fact remains that, the ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure is beyond the scope of show cause notice issued by the learned PCIT. Therefore, from the above, it is abundantly clear that, the revision proceedings taken-up by the learned PCIT is not in accordance with law and, therefore, the Order