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.

34 results for “TDS”+ Section 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai749Delhi724Bangalore284Karnataka190Kolkata177Chennai133Ahmedabad118Chandigarh109Jaipur77Pune71Cochin54Indore54Raipur42Dehradun34Hyderabad34Cuttack33Visakhapatnam32Amritsar26Jodhpur16Telangana16Surat13Rajkot11SC9Allahabad8Patna7Guwahati6Jabalpur6Ranchi5Panaji5Agra4Lucknow4Punjab & Haryana3J&K3Kerala3Calcutta2Orissa1Nagpur1Varanasi1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 4036Section 143(3)31Section 201(1)26TDS24Addition to Income23Disallowance21Section 14817Depreciation13Section 43B12Deduction

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

TDS in light of relevant provisions of Rule 37BA of the I.T. Rules, 1962 and provisions section of 194 O of the I.T. Act, 1961 and argued

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 20110
Section 35E9

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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 154. That be so, subject to the same, in view of the discussions mentioned above the undersigned does not find any anomaly in the action of AO in disallowing the expenditure against which due TDS deduction has not been made. Appellant’s grounds therefore, fail and the appeal is dismissed.” 3. It is sufficiently clear from a perusal

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

194-I ; 13 (vi) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9 ;] Section 194C provides as under :- Payments to contractors. 16a194C. (1) Any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply

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

TDS The tax shall be deducted at the flat rate of 10%. The tax shall be deducted at 20% if Section 206AA or Section 206AB apply. MCQs on Joint Development Agreements (JDA) Q1. If an individual or HUF enters into a joint development agreement (JDA) with a builder or joint developer, it shall be deemed that the capital asset

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD vs. EMAAR HILLS TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1770/HYD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 194CSection 195Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

TDS and further that the impugned order was also barred by limitation since such an order was passed beyond seven years from the end of the financial year 2005-06. 5. Learned CIT(A), followed the decision of ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the case of Bheemarasetty Sunitha vs. DDIT in ITA No. 119/Viz/2016, dated 23/06/2017, following the decision of the Special

ITO, WARD-14(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUSTAN RATNA (JV), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 852/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Vs. Hindustan Ratna (Jv), Ward-14(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaefh 0901 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Vinod Revenue By: Sri D. Srinivas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2018 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Sri P. VinodFor Respondent: Sri D. Srinivas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194CSection 40

194.C on the sub-contract payments or to invoke section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an AOP and engaged in ‘contract works’, filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 electronically on 30.09.3011 admitting income of Rs. 38,96,888/-. During the proceedings

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

TDS on such payments would, therefore, be deductible under Section 194J of the Act.“ Page 12 of 38 ITA Nos.290 of 2011 327 of 2012 and 1775 of 2013 Nunhems India, Medchal, RR Distt. iii) Tony Hariris Business Solutions (P) Ltd – Para 5….. “5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the issue

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

TDS on such payments would, therefore, be deductible under Section 194J of the Act.“ Page 12 of 38 ITA Nos.290 of 2011 327 of 2012 and 1775 of 2013 Nunhems India, Medchal, RR Distt. iii) Tony Hariris Business Solutions (P) Ltd – Para 5….. “5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the issue

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

TDS on such payments would, therefore, be deductible under Section 194J of the Act.“ Page 12 of 38 ITA Nos.290 of 2011 327 of 2012 and 1775 of 2013 Nunhems India, Medchal, RR Distt. iii) Tony Hariris Business Solutions (P) Ltd – Para 5….. “5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the issue

PALLAVI CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 649/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Pallavi Constructions Vs. Acit Hyderabad Circle 14(1) Pan:Aacfp1600M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.2.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-6, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Properties/Construction. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,16,40,200/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed From The Details Furnished By The Assessee That It Has Claimed An Amount Of Rs.2,72,36,046/- Towards “Bank Interest & Charges”. On Being Asked By The Assessing Officer To Submit The Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 191Section 194A(3)(ii)Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 40

TDS on interest paid to NBFC i.e., M/s.Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. We find in appeal, the learned CIT (A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee not only sustained the disallowance of Rs.1,40,96,519/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) but enhanced the income by Page

KRISHNA HARI GADDAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 668/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं/Ita No.668/Hyd/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Krishna Hari Gaddam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-12(1), [Pan No. Adepg7798Q] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत् यर्थी/Respondent नििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar राजस् व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 30/04/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02/11/2023 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-5, Chennai, (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Salaried Employee Of Karvy Stock Broking Limited. For The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Fled His Return Of Income, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 86,10,680/- & Paid Total Income Tax Of Rs. 27,37,674/-, Consisting Of Tax Deducted At Source (“Tds”) Of Rs. 15,11,384/- & Self Assessment Tax Of Rs.12,26,290/-. The Cpc Bengluru (“Cpc”) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”), Dt. 08/05/2021 Did Not Give Credit Of Rs. 13,50,000/- Out Of Total Tds Of Rs. 14,75,000/- Deducted By M/S. Karvy Stock Broking Limited U/S. 192 Of The Act, Contending That Form 26As Does Contains The Details Of Tds Of Rs. 13,50,000/- & Finally Raised A Demand Of Rs.14,17,500/-.

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(1)Section 192

194, 194A, 1948 and 19488, respectively. 8.2 Likewise, payments made to contractors and insurance commission, payments made in respect of life insurance policy, and payments made to the non-resident. sportsmen or sports associations are liable for deduction of tax at source under sections 194C, 1940, 1940A, and 194E, respectively. 8.3 As far as payments made to non-residents

DHARMA TEJA ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1592/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Paduchuri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 201(1)Section 4Section 40

TDS, though the provisions of Sec. 194-I of the Act were attracted. He, therefore, disallowed the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) along with a condone delay petition. The CIT(A) condoned the delay, but however he confirmed the addition. Against the order