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.

271 results for “TDS”+ Section 10(38)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,847Delhi1,828Bangalore962Chennai568Kolkata385Hyderabad271Ahmedabad250Indore202Jaipur198Karnataka176Raipur168Cochin161Chandigarh157Pune100Surat70Visakhapatnam64Lucknow63Rajkot51Cuttack49Dehradun34Ranchi33Nagpur26Agra25Jodhpur23Allahabad19Amritsar19Guwahati18Patna17Panaji15Telangana15Varanasi12SC10Jabalpur7Kerala6Calcutta5Uttarakhand2Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 153C119Addition to Income77Section 143(3)66Disallowance48Search & Seizure40Section 13237Section 153A27Section 14823Section 80I23Section 68

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 271 · Page 1 of 14

...
22
TDS22
Deduction21

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)

38 ITD 320 (Del), observed that, despite several opportunities, the assessee neither furnished any evidence to show that, tax was deducted at source on the relevant payments nor offered any explanation justifying non-deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, even on merits, the assessee failed to substantiate its claim regarding deduction of TDS or justification for non-deduction

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)

38 ITD 320 (Del), observed that, despite several opportunities, the assessee neither furnished any evidence to show that, tax was deducted at source on the relevant payments nor offered any explanation justifying non-deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, even on merits, the assessee failed to substantiate its claim regarding deduction of TDS or justification for non-deduction

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)

38 ITD 320 (Del), observed that, despite several opportunities, the assessee neither furnished any evidence to show that, tax was deducted at source on the relevant payments nor offered any explanation justifying non-deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, even on merits, the assessee failed to substantiate its claim regarding deduction of TDS or justification for non-deduction

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE PRASAD JV, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 457/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sushee Prasad Jv, Hyderabad, Income Tax, Circle – 6(1), Plot No.246/A/2, Road Hyderabad. No.12, Mla Colony, Banjara Hills, Telangana – 500034. Pan : Aapas3540R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sesha Srinivas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sesha Srinivas, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40a

TDS as mentioned in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act r.w.s. first Proviso of Section 201(1) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) has also held that in case the payee referred to in the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act and had taken into account such return of income, then the assessee (Payee) shall

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 880/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 879/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD., KOTHJAGUDEM,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CITT, KHAMMAM RANGE, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 561/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 884/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 802/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM vs. THE SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LT.D, KOTHAGUDEM, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 519/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 803/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM vs. M/S SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD.,, KHAMMAM DIST

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 801/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 882/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

section 43(1) of Income Tax Act. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As regards the ground relating to restriction of depreciation on mine development to 10% as against 15% claimed, as raised in AY 2011-12 as ground Nos. 9 & 10, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 15% to the extent

CYIENT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1250/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2021-22 Cyient Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Apn : Aaac14887J

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA and Shri KFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 40Section 92C

section 144B of the Act dated 03.10.2024 relating to A.Y.2021-22. 2 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : 1) The order passed by the Ld. A.O./DRP is bad in law, illegal and non-est. 2) The Ld. TPO/DRP/A.O. has erred in not accepting the characterization of the assessee as software development provider

GOPIKISHAN PALLOD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 568/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.568/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Shri Gopikishan Pallod Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 7 (1) Pan:Aanpp8665K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Parameshwar G. Chintakula राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19/12/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2023-24. 2. There Is A Delay Of 29 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Explained The Reasons For Such Delay In Filing The Appeal. After Considering The Explanation Of The Assessee, We Condone The Delay Of 29 Days In Filing The Present Appeal & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: C.A. Parameshwar G. ChintakulaFor Respondent: : Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, Sr.AR
Section 143(1)Section 194

38,211/- and according to the Assessing Officer CPC as per Rule 37BA of the I.T Rules,1962 credit for TDS shall be allowed in the year in which income relatable to said TDS has been declared. 10. We find that, the assessee has reported the income relatable to TDS credit of Rs.1,62,412/- for the year under Page

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

38,894/-(is treated as assessee's unexplained money u/s.69A of the I.T.Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961 for addition u/s.69A of the I.T.Act, 1961 are initiated separately. 3.2. It is also seen from TDS Statement u/s. 194A that the assessee is in receipt

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1187/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viiia)

TDS credit as per law. The above ground is allowed to that extent accordingly. The Ground nos. 6 & 7 are consequential to the grounds adjudicated above, therefore needs no separate adjudication. To sum up the appeal is partly allowed.” 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before

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

TDS to an extent of Rs. 9,70.814/- 15. The Ld. AO erred in computing interest u/s 234B of Rs. 31,16.646/- 16. The Ld. AO erred in computing interest u/s 234C of Rs. 37,20,130/-. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter

SUSHEE REALTY LLP, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 243/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 40A(3)

TDS and Rs. 10,77,381/- disallowed u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. So far as the addition of Rs. 1,45,79,994/- towards other expenses is concerned, the learned CIT(A) restricted the same to 25%, thereby sustaining an addition of Rs. 36,44,998/- and deleting the balance amount of Rs. 1,09,34,996/- by observing