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.

60 results for “TDS”+ Section 197(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi360Mumbai285Bangalore272Chennai122Karnataka114Raipur87Kolkata81Chandigarh62Hyderabad60Jaipur53Ranchi29Ahmedabad24Lucknow16Jodhpur16Indore13Surat12Cuttack10Pune9Varanasi8Allahabad7Guwahati6Nagpur6Cochin6Rajkot5Telangana4Visakhapatnam3Jabalpur3Patna3SC3Agra1

Key Topics

Addition to Income47Section 13246Section 139(1)40Section 153C38Section 6938Search & Seizure38Section 201(1)29Section 133A15Survey u/s 133A15Section 194J

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. S A BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS , HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 295/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nShri K.C. Devdas, CA
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

section 153A is bad in law, the\nassessment has no leg to stand and the same is required to be\nquashed.\n10. Without prejudice to above legal contention the appellant\ncontends that following additions are liable to be deleted on\nmerits.\n(i)\nCreditors Appearing under Loans &\nAdvances (Asset)\nRs.1,44,86,500\nSl.No.\nName of the Customer\nClosing Balance

S A BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3

14
Section 914
TDS14
ITA 259/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed
ITAT Hyderabad
15 May 2025
AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

section 153A is bad in law, the\nassessment has no leg to stand and the same is required to be\nquashed.\n10. Without prejudice to above legal contention the appellant\ncontends that following additions are liable to be deleted on\nmerits.\n(i)\nCreditors Appearing under Loans &\nAdvances (Asset)\nRs.1,44,86,500\nSl.No.\nName of the Customer\nClosing Balance

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

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in law as well as in facts in assuming jurisdiction w/s 147 of the Act and issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act to the Appellant, in as much as there has been no escapement of assessment of income chargeable to tax for the year

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 u/s. 194H in respect of commission payments made to distribution on prepaid connections. 4. When the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed a combined order for all the AYs under consideration and confirmed the orders of AO. :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1913 to 1919/Hyd/2019 Vodafone Idea Ltd., Hyd. 5. Aggrieved by the order

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 u/s. 194H in respect of commission payments made to distribution on prepaid connections. 4. When the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed a combined order for all the AYs under consideration and confirmed the orders of AO. :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1913 to 1919/Hyd/2019 Vodafone Idea Ltd., Hyd. 5. Aggrieved by the order

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 u/s. 194H in respect of commission payments made to distribution on prepaid connections. 4. When the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed a combined order for all the AYs under consideration and confirmed the orders of AO. :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1913 to 1919/Hyd/2019 Vodafone Idea Ltd., Hyd. 5. Aggrieved by the order

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 u/s. 194H in respect of commission payments made to distribution on prepaid connections. 4. When the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed a combined order for all the AYs under consideration and confirmed the orders of AO. :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1913 to 1919/Hyd/2019 Vodafone Idea Ltd., Hyd. 5. Aggrieved by the order

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 u/s. 194H in respect of commission payments made to distribution on prepaid connections. 4. When the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed a combined order for all the AYs under consideration and confirmed the orders of AO. :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1913 to 1919/Hyd/2019 Vodafone Idea Ltd., Hyd. 5. Aggrieved by the order

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 u/s. 194H in respect of commission payments made to distribution on prepaid connections. 4. When the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed a combined order for all the AYs under consideration and confirmed the orders of AO. :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1913 to 1919/Hyd/2019 Vodafone Idea Ltd., Hyd. 5. Aggrieved by the order

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 u/s. 194H in respect of commission payments made to distribution on prepaid connections. 4. When the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed a combined order for all the AYs under consideration and confirmed the orders of AO. :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 1913 to 1919/Hyd/2019 Vodafone Idea Ltd., Hyd. 5. Aggrieved by the order

INVESCO(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2 (1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 111/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

TDS credit and advance tax credit of the amalgamating entity to the Appellant (i.e. amalgamated company) of the AY 2017-18 at the time of determining the amount of tax payable by the Appellant. 10. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section

SAPTAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD-1, TIRUPATI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 8/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev AdityaFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 197ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

TDS has failed and hence, the AO is right in invoking the provisions of Sec.201 (1)and Sec.201(1A) of the Act.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 8. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and submitted that

SAPTAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD-1, TIRUPATI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 10/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev AdityaFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 197ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

TDS has failed and hence, the AO is right in invoking the provisions of Sec.201 (1)and Sec.201(1A) of the Act.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 8. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and submitted that

SAPTAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD-1, TIRUPATI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 9/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev AdityaFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 197ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

TDS has failed and hence, the AO is right in invoking the provisions of Sec.201 (1)and Sec.201(1A) of the Act.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 8. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and submitted that

SAPTAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD-1, TIRUPATI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 11/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev AdityaFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 197ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

TDS has failed and hence, the AO is right in invoking the provisions of Sec.201 (1)and Sec.201(1A) of the Act.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 8. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and submitted that

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 20/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

1 being the developer company. It is important to note that the developer company has already admitted the said position and only in the present adjudication the villa owners including the appellant are agitating the matter. It is seen that the agreement of sale was entered on 05.08.2016 and the first 3 pages of the said agreement indicating the name

TRICITIES SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 15/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

1 being the developer company. It is important to note that the developer company has already admitted the said position and only in the present adjudication the villa owners including the appellant are agitating the matter. It is seen that the agreement of sale was entered on 05.08.2016 and the first 3 pages of the said agreement indicating the name

KAUSHIK REDDY PADI ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 82/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

1 being the developer company. It is important to note that the developer company has already admitted the said position and only in the present adjudication the villa owners including the appellant are agitating the matter. It is seen that the agreement of sale was entered on 05.08.2016 and the first 3 pages of the said agreement indicating the name

TRICITIES SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 14/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

1 being the developer company. It is important to note that the developer company has already admitted the said position and only in the present adjudication the villa owners including the appellant are agitating the matter. It is seen that the agreement of sale was entered on 05.08.2016 and the first 3 pages of the said agreement indicating the name

GARUDAPALLY SHRUTHI GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 11/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

1 being the developer company. It is important to note that the developer company has already admitted the said position and only in the present adjudication the villa owners including the appellant are agitating the matter. It is seen that the agreement of sale was entered on 05.08.2016 and the first 3 pages of the said agreement indicating the name