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.

10 results for “TDS”+ Section 194(3)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai512Delhi505Bangalore226Karnataka177Chennai119Kolkata108Chandigarh54Ahmedabad44Jaipur37Raipur34Indore33Pune20Telangana13Cochin13Hyderabad10Visakhapatnam7Amritsar7Dehradun7SC7Lucknow5Cuttack5Surat4Guwahati4Rajkot4Patna3Jabalpur2Orissa1Calcutta1Nagpur1Ranchi1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1J&K1Allahabad1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 4012Addition to Income8Disallowance6Section 1475Section 2014Section 10B4Section 40A(9)4TDS4Section 143(2)3Section 40a

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 368/HYD/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 40

194 Taxman 192 (Bombay). b) Erred in upholding the flawed approach adopted by the Ld. AO in not granting deduction under section 10A of the Act which was allowed in the subsequent year i.e., AY 2006-07 by the Ld. AO, during the regular assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. 7. Erred in upholding the action

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

ITA 301/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed
3
Section 201(1)3
Deduction3
ITAT Hyderabad
12 Jun 2025
AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)
Section 194Section 32ASection 37Section 40Section 40A(9)

v. Dandu\nSaraswatamта [1994] 205 ITR 587 (AP), the Commissioner\naddressed a D.O. letter dated 1-3-1987 to the then Revenue\nSecretary requesting him to issue instructions to all the\nofficers concerned with land acquisition to deduct income-\ntax on payment of interest and to follow the provisions as\nlain down under section 194A and other provisions

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

v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 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

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

3 of 8 ITA No 649 of 2018 Pallavi Constructions Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688(1990) submitted that these grounds being purely legal in nature and no new facts are required to be investigated, these grounds should be admitted for adjudication. 6.1 After hearing both the sides and considering the fact that the additional grounds

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

194/- by holding that the business of the assessee has not commenced operation accordingly the expense has to be capitalised. 4) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made additions towards interest charged U/s. 234A, B and C of the Act. 3. The assessee has also raised an additional ground

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

194/- by holding that the business of the assessee has not commenced operation accordingly the expense has to be capitalised. 4) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the ld.AO who had made additions towards interest charged U/s. 234A, B and C of the Act. 3. The assessee has also raised an additional ground

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

v. Asst. CIT, [2023] 452 ITR 107 (Delhi) ; 2023 SCC Online Delhi 1160 ; [2023]148 taxmann.com 329 (Delhi). 2. [2024] 462 ITR 141 (Delhi) ; 2023 SCC Online Delhi 8467. 3. [2024]470 ITR 346 (Delhi) ; 2023 SCC Online Delhi 7539. 4. [2024]470 ITR 337 (Delhi) ; 2023 SCC Online Delhi 7526. 7.2 Section 199, which is contained in Chapter XVII

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

V Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 21.12.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 05.01.2024 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. The captioned appeals are filed by the Revenue feeling aggrieved by the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 2244/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 251(1)

194 GUJ HC (copy submitted at pages 9 to 13 annexed). This decision was followed Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the same assessee's case vide,their decision dated 30- 07-2019 in R/Tax Appeal No.281 of 2019 (copy submitted at pages 1 to 8 annexed). 4. Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, has directed allowance of depreciation

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