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.

9 results for “TDS”+ Section 233clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai273Delhi247Bangalore118Karnataka88Cochin72Chennai61Kolkata58Ahmedabad46Raipur30Chandigarh29Visakhapatnam23Jaipur17Cuttack14Indore11Lucknow11Rajkot10Pune10Surat10Hyderabad9Amritsar8Dehradun7Nagpur6Guwahati5Kerala3Patna2SC1Jabalpur1Telangana1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income7Section 143(3)5Section 683TDS3Disallowance3Section 143(1)2Section 1442Section 234A2Section 249(3)2Business Income

CYIENT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1250/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2021-22 Cyient Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Apn : Aaac14887J

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA and Shri KFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 40Section 92C

233/- but as per Form 3CD clause 34(a) under TDS provisions, the assessee has admitted to have deducted TDS on salaries and wages of Rs.5,01,23,59,279/-. Since there is a difference of 8 Rs.1,28,52,83,944/-, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to file necessary evidences and also explain why TDS

2
Deduction2
Condonation of Delay2

ANALOGICS TECH INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 37Section 37(1)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1 The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the disallowance of an amount of Rs.2,49,233/- being interest on PF/ESI

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

TDS credit to the assessee, however there is no fault on the-part of the assessee. On a careful consideration of the facts of the present case, we find that the issue in this appeal is similar to the issue decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Harshdip Singh Dhillon vs. Union of India (supra

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

233 to Pg. 242 of the material paper book) 2. The department submits that the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore allowed the appeal of the assessee on observing that the receipt of the consideration over a period on sale of a capital asset does not change the nature of transaction from capital gains to business. 3. The department humbly submits, that

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

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

TDS) reported in 196 Taxmann 445 has held as under: “The affidavit filed in support of the application for the condonation of delay disclosed that, after the order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there was a change of managing director. Though the chartered accountant of the company opined that it was a fit case for appeal and prepared

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

TDS) reported in 196 Taxmann 445 has held as under: “The affidavit filed in support of the application for the condonation of delay disclosed that, after the order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there was a change of managing director. Though the chartered accountant of the company opined that it was a fit case for appeal and prepared

ALBANY MOLECULAR RESEARCH HYDERABAD RESEARCH CENTER PVT..LTD., HYD,R.R.DIST vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 425/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

Section 143(3)Section 92B

233 & 107/HYD/2016, 2184/HYD/2017 & 2376/HYD/2018 A.Ys : 2010-11 TO 2014-15 SA NO.51/Hyd/2020 (Arising out of ITA No.107/Hyd/2016) A.Ys : 2012-13 SA No.52/Hyd/2020 (Arising out of 2376/Hyd/2018) A.Y. 2014-15 M/s. Albany Molecular Research Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad Research Center Hyderabad (Respondent) Private Limited, Plot No. 9, Sy.No. 230-243, Phase-I, Shapoorji Pallonji Biotech Park Pvt. Ltd., Genome

IMPACT METALAS LIMITED, MEDAK DIST.,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 338/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Impact Metals Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Medak Tax, Circle 2(1) Pan: Aaaci4546A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 143(1)Section 22Section 24Section 68

233/- was added, on investments of Rs.1,21,60,274/- which was made in unquoted shares of M/s Konaseema Finance Pvt Ltd, for acquiring the said company, in spite of a favorable observation by the Assessing Officer. 7. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer wherein, a notional interest of Rs.3,66,237 was added