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.

89 results for “TDS”+ Section 194C(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai674Delhi630Kolkata434Bangalore284Chennai184Ahmedabad144Jaipur114Hyderabad89Cochin75Chandigarh62Pune58Indore55Karnataka50Raipur49Cuttack48Visakhapatnam45Rajkot42Nagpur40Amritsar30Jodhpur24Surat22Patna19Panaji18Jabalpur16Lucknow16Allahabad15Ranchi14Guwahati14Agra8Kerala8Telangana7Calcutta5SC5Dehradun4Varanasi3Rajasthan2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 4089Section 201(1)65Section 143(3)64TDS63Addition to Income58Section 194C48Deduction43Disallowance43Section 153A41Section 80I

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)

5,06,515/- incurred towards machinery hire charges, and Rs. 30,000/- incurred towards audit fee. The A.O. has referred to the payments made by the assessee without deducting TDS under the respective provisions of the Act in para 6.7 of his order and claimed that the assessee has made the above payments without deducting TDS applicable under

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)

5,06,515/- incurred towards machinery hire charges, and Rs. 30,000/- incurred towards audit fee. The A.O. has referred to the payments made by the assessee without deducting TDS under the respective provisions of the Act in para 6.7 of his order and claimed that the assessee has made the above payments without deducting TDS applicable under

Showing 1–20 of 89 · Page 1 of 5

32
Section 43B23
Section 133A22

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)

5,06,515/- incurred towards machinery hire charges, and Rs. 30,000/- incurred towards audit fee. The A.O. has referred to the payments made by the assessee without deducting TDS under the respective provisions of the Act in para 6.7 of his order and claimed that the assessee has made the above payments without deducting TDS applicable under

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

194C of the Act. Although, the Assessing Officer has made 10% ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure debited under the Head “Rents/JCB/Tipper/ Crane”, but, in our considered view, the said disallowance was made on the basis of directions of the learned PCIT in the order passed under section 263 of the Act, but, the fact remains that, the said direction

DIWAKAR LOGISTICS ,TADIPATRI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 173/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2014-15 M/S.Diwakar Logistics Vs. A.C.I.T Tadipatri Circle – 1 Pan:Aahfd0549E Anantapur (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.12.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Kurnool, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. Fact Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Transportation Of Goods & Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.31,90,390/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Debited Finance Charges Of Rs.2,81,642/- & Transportation Charges Paid To Others Of Rs.74,57,350/-. The Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam, DR
Section 194ASection 194CSection 37Section 40

TDS need not be made if the aggregate value of the amount does not exceed Rs.75,000/-p.a and there is no agreement between the assessee and truck owners for which provision of section 194C are not applicable. So far as the addition of Rs.10,90,400/- is concerned, he submitted that the same is for commercial expediency and therefore

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1919/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

TDS was deductible - Held, yes (paras 12 & 13 ) [In favour of assessee]. 9.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source for the assessee payer in terms of section 194C or 194J of the Act and hence the assessee cannot be treated as 'assessee in default

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1915/HYD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

TDS was deductible - Held, yes (paras 12 & 13 ) [In favour of assessee]. 9.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source for the assessee payer in terms of section 194C or 194J of the Act and hence the assessee cannot be treated as 'assessee in default

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1918/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

TDS was deductible - Held, yes (paras 12 & 13 ) [In favour of assessee]. 9.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source for the assessee payer in terms of section 194C or 194J of the Act and hence the assessee cannot be treated as 'assessee in default

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1917/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

TDS was deductible - Held, yes (paras 12 & 13 ) [In favour of assessee]. 9.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source for the assessee payer in terms of section 194C or 194J of the Act and hence the assessee cannot be treated as 'assessee in default

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1916/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

TDS was deductible - Held, yes (paras 12 & 13 ) [In favour of assessee]. 9.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source for the assessee payer in terms of section 194C or 194J of the Act and hence the assessee cannot be treated as 'assessee in default

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1913/HYD/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

TDS was deductible - Held, yes (paras 12 & 13 ) [In favour of assessee]. 9.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source for the assessee payer in terms of section 194C or 194J of the Act and hence the assessee cannot be treated as 'assessee in default

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals and cross objections of the assessee for the Asst Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1914/HYD/2019[2005-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2022AY 2005-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar(CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

TDS was deductible - Held, yes (paras 12 & 13 ) [In favour of assessee]. 9.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source for the assessee payer in terms of section 194C or 194J of the Act and hence the assessee cannot be treated as 'assessee in default

M/S. COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

ITA 1689/HYD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy
Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43B

TDS not deducted cases. As nothing is outstanding as payable at the end of year, the amount cannot be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 5,03,20,862/- in the light of the decision of the Special Bench of Hon'ble ITAT, Vizag in the case of M/s Merilyn Shipping & Transports Vs ACIT, ITA No 477/Viz/2008. 8. That

DY.CIT, CIR-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S CUNTRY CLUB (I) LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

ITA 1735/HYD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy
Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43B

TDS not deducted cases. As nothing is outstanding as payable at the end of year, the amount cannot be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 5,03,20,862/- in the light of the decision of the Special Bench of Hon'ble ITAT, Vizag in the case of M/s Merilyn Shipping & Transports Vs ACIT, ITA No 477/Viz/2008. 8. That

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

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE PLOCE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1527/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Laxminiwas Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 43B

Section 194C are applicable at the time of payment or at the time of making credit to the account. In this case, the assessee has neither measured the work-in-progress nor the contractor has raised the bill and the assessee has made the provisions on estimation basis. The assessee has submitted that neither it had made the payment

HCC CP PL JV,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1005/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Hcc Cp Pl Jv, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –14(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaaah5541G. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Appeared Through Hybrid Mode) Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR
Section 194CSection 199Section 238Section 238(1)

5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the LD.CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its submissions made before the Assessing Officer and argued that the provisions of Section 238(1) of the Act, are not applicable to the assessee because the assessee has reported the amount received from NFR, as income

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB (I) LTD,, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1654/HYD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Addl. Cit, Range-1 Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Country Club Hospitality & Income Tax, Circle 1(2) Vs Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 200Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43B

194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 3,57,069/- towards Programme Expenses Payable. 22. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194J are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 3,00,000/ - towards Audit fee. 23. The Ld AO erred in provoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) without appreciating

M/S COUNTRY CLUB (INDIA) LTD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1504/HYD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Addl. Cit, Range-1 Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Country Club Hospitality & Income Tax, Circle 1(2) Vs Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 200Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43B

194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 3,57,069/- towards Programme Expenses Payable. 22. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194J are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 3,00,000/ - towards Audit fee. 23. The Ld AO erred in provoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) without appreciating

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

194C and, therefore, the AO is duty bound to disallow the impugned sum in respect of which no TDS deduction has been made. During the appellate proceedings the AR of the appellant further submits that vide order dated 22 February 2016 the AO has given certain relief to the appellant by rectifying apparent mistake under section 154. That