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.

36 results for “TDS”+ Section 186clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi252Mumbai224Karnataka90Bangalore82Chennai76Pune39Hyderabad36Jaipur33Ahmedabad30Indore29Raipur27Kolkata25Lucknow24Visakhapatnam20Chandigarh14Cuttack10Surat7Amritsar3Rajkot3Nagpur3Agra2Dehradun2Cochin2Allahabad2SC1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 153A31Section 143(3)22Section 200A20Section 15420Section 143(1)18Section 13217Section 234E16TDS16Search & Seizure16Penalty

SOWBHAGYA BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (TDS)-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 499/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sbhakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 154Section 154(7)Section 155Section 186Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 243E

186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed.” The appellant has filed the rectification application on 05/12/2022 i.e. after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

16
Section 4014
Addition to Income9

SOWBHAGYA BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (TDS)-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 498/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sbhakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 154Section 154(7)Section 155Section 186Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 243E

186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed.” The appellant has filed the rectification application on 05/12/2022 i.e. after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought

SOWBHAGYA BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (TDS)-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 494/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sbhakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 154Section 154(7)Section 155Section 186Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 243E

186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed.” The appellant has filed the rectification application on 05/12/2022 i.e. after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought

SOWBHAGYA BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (TDS)-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sbhakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 154Section 154(7)Section 155Section 186Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 243E

186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed.” The appellant has filed the rectification application on 05/12/2022 i.e. after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought

SOWBHAGYA BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (TDS)-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 497/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sbhakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 154Section 154(7)Section 155Section 186Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 243E

186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed.” The appellant has filed the rectification application on 05/12/2022 i.e. after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought

SOWBHAGYA BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD(TDS)-2(2),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sbhakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 154Section 154(7)Section 155Section 186Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 243E

186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed.” The appellant has filed the rectification application on 05/12/2022 i.e. after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. TRIDENT CHEMPHAR LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 433/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Trident Chemphar Ltd. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaeft8416H. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2023

For Appellant: Shri B.G. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar – CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 195Section 40

TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. Under Section 5 of the Act, non-residents are taxable in India only on incomes which are received/deemed to be received or accrued/deemed to be accrued in India. The residency and incorporation certificates of all the three entities stating that they are incorporated in Dubai are on record. The commission agents are non-residents

TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Helen Ruby Jesindha, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37Section 37(1)

section 37(1) of the Act, only such expenditure incurred in connection with an offence, for an illegal act, or breach of law or prohibited in law alone is not allowable and in other cases, the payment of interest, more particularly in respect of TDS is only compensatory in nature. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported in Mahalakshmi Sugar

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE 16(1),,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 1775/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8.1 The learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made by the assessee before the authorities below and relied upon the same case law for treating the payments made to Nunhems BV as not amenable to TDS provisions. 8.2 Having regard to the rival

NUNHEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.,,R.R.DIST vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 290/HYD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8.1 The learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made by the assessee before the authorities below and relied upon the same case law for treating the payments made to Nunhems BV as not amenable to TDS provisions. 8.2 Having regard to the rival

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,R.R.DIST vs. JCIT, RANGE 16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 327/HYD/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8.1 The learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made by the assessee before the authorities below and relied upon the same case law for treating the payments made to Nunhems BV as not amenable to TDS provisions. 8.2 Having regard to the rival

VAGDEVI REDDY TANDUR,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 505/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Muttha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy
Section 195Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

TDS, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer”) as he received intimation u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein demand of Rs.39,200/- was raised towards late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act. Assessee disputing the above demand filed the present appeal. 3. Feeling aggrieved with the order dt.15.02.2020 passed by the Assessing Officer, assessee filed

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

section is very clear and the appellant has incurred the expenditure and the appellant has made the payment to the various parties and persons. The appellant has, to circumvent, not accounted for the same and has also not brought out any evidence from M/s.DLF that they have accounted for such transactions in their books as cash payments. The MoU cannot

ORBIT 9 ELECTRONICS ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 16/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charym/S.Orbit 9 Electronics, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-6(2), [Pan No. Aabfo6265A] Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Deshmukh, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.Sunil Goutam, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194JSection 44ASection 44BSection 80H

Section 44ADA of the Act inasmuch as the gross business receipts of the assessee exceed the threshold limit of Rs.50 lakhs. Nextly, as a matter of fact, on verification of record, Ld. CIT(A) found that this amount of Rs.1,29,07,148/- which was received from the clients/customers and in respect of which, TDS was deducted was in fact

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 720/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 721/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 716/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 718/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 722/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with

ELITE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 719/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

TDS credit claimed in the return of income is incorrect. The credit for the tax deducted at source was only claimed to the extent it is appearing in Form 26AS. For the services provided by the company during the year, the recipients of services have paid the amounts to the assessee after deducting tax at source in accordance with