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.

59 results for “TDS”+ Section 195(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,092Mumbai1,042Bangalore631Chennai482Kolkata173Ahmedabad126Karnataka121Jaipur67Pune60Hyderabad59Chandigarh53Visakhapatnam33Rajkot30Indore19Raipur18Lucknow17Dehradun16Cochin15Surat7Telangana6Allahabad6Nagpur6SC5Panaji5Agra4Jabalpur4Amritsar4Calcutta3Kerala2Punjab & Haryana1Patna1Cuttack1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)50Section 143(3)41TDS41Deduction34Section 4032Section 19532Addition to Income28Disallowance22Section 234E15Section 9

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

6 and payments were made. Therefore, the statement per-se cannot alone be relied upon disregarding the other compelling evidences. 5.4.4 With regard to non deduction of TDS u/s.195 and consequential disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act, it is seen that Section 195

Showing 1–20 of 59 · Page 1 of 3

15
Section 194J14
Section 195(3)13

FSL PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY FRONTLINE SOFT LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE14(3) (TDS), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1080/HYD/2003[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Feb 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Saketh Reddy, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 192(2)Section 195Section 195(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

6. Basing on the observations of the Hon'ble High Court, learned AR urged that the consequence of the granting of the exemption under section 195(3) of the Act is that the entire remittances that have been made to M/s IGTL Solutions (USA) would be non-taxable so far as the TDS

FSL PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY FRONTLINE SOFT LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 14(3) (TDS), HYDERABAD

In the result, subject to the above observations, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/HYD/2003[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2024AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Saketh Reddy, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 192(2)Section 195Section 195(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 195(3) of the Act and if it is found to be genuine, the consequence shall be that the entire remittances that were made to M/s. IGTL Solutions (USA) Page 4 of 6 would be non-taxable so far as TDS

REASONING GLOBAL E-APPLICATIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2028/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Reasoning Global E- Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Application Ltd, Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aadcr6701P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Swapnil Deshmukh, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing It Enabled Electronic Commerce Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2012-13 On 30.09.2012 Declaring Loss Of Rs.9,52,71,232/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Debited An Amount Of Rs.1,02,18,116/- Towards Web Hosting Charges. From The Bills/Invoices Produced For The Expenditure So Claimed, The Page 1 Of 19

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Deshmukh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 9(1)(vi)

6. Referring to the provisions of section 195, the provisions of DTAA between India and US, the Assessing Officer held that the TDS

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

S & P CAPITAL IQ (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 471/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on the software license payment in the nature of royalty and also charged interest of Rs. 1,67,50,047/- under section 201(1A) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by such an action of the learned Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the decision

TOSHIBA TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,RUDRARAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-81), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 103/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं / Ita Tp No.103/Hyd/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Toshiba Transmission & Distribution Vs. Acit, Circle-8(1) Systems (India) Private Ltd. Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaect6883F] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Kranthi,Ar & Shri Kc Devdas, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Ms.Kranthi,AR and Shri KC Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 195Section 40Section 92C

6. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer the assessee filed the present appeal and has raised as many as twelve grounds of appeal. However, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee has only argued Ground No.1 to 3 and Ground Nos. 7,8 and 9. 7. With respect to Ground No.1, the learned counsel

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSPIRA MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAB

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1791/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Nspira Management Circle-16(1) Services Private Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr.Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

195(1) of the Act. 16. In rebuttal, the ld.DR for the Revenue had submitted that even presuming that the contention of the assessee is correct, then also, the assessee was having PE and business connection in India and therefore, in view of the Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) (viii) of the Act, the assessee was deducting TDS

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

6 & 7 in AYs. 2007-08 to 2010-11 regarding prior period expenditure, the assessee had claimed deduction for net prior period expenditure for an amount of Rs. 2,18,20,357/- in AY 2005-06, against which, the AO computed the eligible amount to the extent of Rs. 69,20,712/- and the excess deduction claimed amounting

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

6 & 7 in AYs. 2007-08 to 2010-11 regarding prior period expenditure, the assessee had claimed deduction for net prior period expenditure for an amount of Rs. 2,18,20,357/- in AY 2005-06, against which, the AO computed the eligible amount to the extent of Rs. 69,20,712/- and the excess deduction claimed amounting

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

6 & 7 in AYs. 2007-08 to 2010-11 regarding prior period expenditure, the assessee had claimed deduction for net prior period expenditure for an amount of Rs. 2,18,20,357/- in AY 2005-06, against which, the AO computed the eligible amount to the extent of Rs. 69,20,712/- and the excess deduction claimed amounting

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

6 & 7 in AYs. 2007-08 to 2010-11 regarding prior period expenditure, the assessee had claimed deduction for net prior period expenditure for an amount of Rs. 2,18,20,357/- in AY 2005-06, against which, the AO computed the eligible amount to the extent of Rs. 69,20,712/- and the excess deduction claimed amounting

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

6 & 7 in AYs. 2007-08 to 2010-11 regarding prior period expenditure, the assessee had claimed deduction for net prior period expenditure for an amount of Rs. 2,18,20,357/- in AY 2005-06, against which, the AO computed the eligible amount to the extent of Rs. 69,20,712/- and the excess deduction claimed amounting

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

6 & 7 in AYs. 2007-08 to 2010-11 regarding prior period expenditure, the assessee had claimed deduction for net prior period expenditure for an amount of Rs. 2,18,20,357/- in AY 2005-06, against which, the AO computed the eligible amount to the extent of Rs. 69,20,712/- and the excess deduction claimed amounting

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

6 & 7 in AYs. 2007-08 to 2010-11 regarding prior period expenditure, the assessee had claimed deduction for net prior period expenditure for an amount of Rs. 2,18,20,357/- in AY 2005-06, against which, the AO computed the eligible amount to the extent of Rs. 69,20,712/- and the excess deduction claimed amounting

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

6 & 7 in AYs. 2007-08 to 2010-11 regarding prior period expenditure, the assessee had claimed deduction for net prior period expenditure for an amount of Rs. 2,18,20,357/- in AY 2005-06, against which, the AO computed the eligible amount to the extent of Rs. 69,20,712/- and the excess deduction claimed amounting

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

6 & 7 in AYs. 2007-08 to 2010-11 regarding prior period expenditure, the assessee had claimed deduction for net prior period expenditure for an amount of Rs. 2,18,20,357/- in AY 2005-06, against which, the AO computed the eligible amount to the extent of Rs. 69,20,712/- and the excess deduction claimed amounting

BADRI HARI BABU,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 126/HYD/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 45(1)

195(1) for deduction of income tax by the payer is clear and unambiguous and casts an obligation to deduct appropriate tax at the rates in force, therefore, the assessee though a resident, clearly comes under the purview of this section and by virtue of non deduction of tax, has committed a default and hence is liable

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE vs. BADRI MANJULA , NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 780/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 45(1)

195(1) for deduction of income tax by the payer is clear and unambiguous and casts an obligation to deduct appropriate tax at the rates in force, therefore, the assessee though a resident, clearly comes under the purview of this section and by virtue of non deduction of tax, has committed a default and hence is liable

BADRI HARI BABU,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 125/HYD/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Badri Hari Babu Vs. Ito(International 15/342, Subedarpet Taxation) Andra Pradesh Nellore Nellore-524 001

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 45(1)

195(1) for deduction of income tax by the payer is clear and unambiguous and casts an obligation to deduct appropriate tax at the rates in force, therefore, the assessee though a resident, clearly comes under the purview of this section and by virtue of non deduction of tax, has committed a default and hence is liable