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.

78 results for “TDS”+ Section 234B(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi884Mumbai785Bangalore414Ahmedabad103Kolkata98Hyderabad78Chennai67Jaipur54Pune51Chandigarh32Karnataka29Indore23Agra22Visakhapatnam17Ranchi16Dehradun14Surat12Cochin12Lucknow8Rajkot7Nagpur7Cuttack6Allahabad5Patna5Raipur5Jabalpur4Guwahati2Telangana2Jodhpur2SC1Panaji1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 153C96Section 143(3)82Addition to Income52Search & Seizure41Disallowance39Section 153A35Penalty29Cash Deposit27Section 234B25Section 68

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERSABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 796/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92D

234B / 234C On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B/234C of the Act. 11. Penalty Proceedings On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO / Ld. AO / Ld. DRP have erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A and 271AA, without

Showing 1–20 of 78 · Page 1 of 4

24
Section 80G22
Limitation/Time-bar21

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD, TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD, TELANGANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 332/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 195(2)Section 40

3: Erroneous addition of INR 4,97,00,962 on account of difference in income as per Form 26AS vis-à-vis books of accounts. 3.1 The order passed by the Ld. AO and upheld by the Ld. DRP is erroneous and bad in law to the extent it made addition on account of difference in income as per Form

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 912/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

TDS, or self-assessment tax discrepancies. 25.1 The taxpayer is notified of any adjustments via an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, and they are given an opportunity to respond before any demand is raised. 25.2 However, an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment. It is merely a preliminary check of the return filed

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1937/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

section 143(3) r/w 153A on 31.03.2013 for the A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07. However, in both the orders, the Assessing Officer has not given any deduction claimed by the assessee. In the assessment order dt.31.03.2013 mentioned as under : “Search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 were carried out in the case of M/.s. Madhucon

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1326/HYD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

section 143(3) r/w 153A on 31.03.2013 for the A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07. However, in both the orders, the Assessing Officer has not given any deduction claimed by the assessee. In the assessment order dt.31.03.2013 mentioned as under : “Search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 were carried out in the case of M/.s. Madhucon

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1938/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

section 143(3) r/w 153A on 31.03.2013 for the A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07. However, in both the orders, the Assessing Officer has not given any deduction claimed by the assessee. In the assessment order dt.31.03.2013 mentioned as under : “Search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 were carried out in the case of M/.s. Madhucon

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

234B of the Act in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, deserves to be deleted. We, accordingly, delete the addition.” 6.4. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee was able to prove his case that the admitted tax liability was already paid by the assessee / adjusted by the Revenue and therefore

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED (31/10/2015),RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 227/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 143(3)Section 92C

3,08,07,638 available to the Appellant, thereby resulting in short grant of credit of TDS of INR 2,389. :- 9 -: ITA Nos..227 & 228/Hyd/2021 ADP Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 23. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the ld. AO erred by granting credit of advance tax of INR 28,30,00,000 as against

ADP PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 228/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 143(3)Section 92C

3,08,07,638 available to the Appellant, thereby resulting in short grant of credit of TDS of INR 2,389. :- 9 -: ITA Nos..227 & 228/Hyd/2021 ADP Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. 23. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the ld. AO erred by granting credit of advance tax of INR 28,30,00,000 as against

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 482/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AR
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 37Section 80GSection 80G(2)

TDS short credit and interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. Apart from these, there were certain other issues including the transfer pricing adjustment qua the provision of IT services. 3

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 145/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AR
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 37Section 80GSection 80G(2)

TDS short credit and interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. Apart from these, there were certain other issues including the transfer pricing adjustment qua the provision of IT services. 3

MACROMILL RESEARCH INDIA LLP (FORMERLY MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH P. LTD.,),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-16(2), , HYDERABAD

ITA 501/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav
Section 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 92C(2)

234B of the Act on: a. TP adjustment on provision of IT Enabled Services ; and b. TP adjustment arising on account of retrospective amendment to the section 92C(2) 15. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee

MACROMILL RESEARCH INDIA LLP (FORMERLY MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-16(2), , HYDERABAD

ITA 1866/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav
Section 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 92C(2)

234B of the Act on: a. TP adjustment on provision of IT Enabled Services ; and b. TP adjustment arising on account of retrospective amendment to the section 92C(2) 15. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee

ACIT, CIRLCE-5 (1), , HYDERABAD vs. MARKET TOOLS RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

ITA 424/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav
Section 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 92C(2)

234B of the Act on: a. TP adjustment on provision of IT Enabled Services ; and b. TP adjustment arising on account of retrospective amendment to the section 92C(2) 15. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1) , HYDERABAD vs. MARKET TOOLS & RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1935/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav
Section 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 92C(2)

234B of the Act on: a. TP adjustment on provision of IT Enabled Services ; and b. TP adjustment arising on account of retrospective amendment to the section 92C(2) 15. Initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1(C) of the Act. 16. Initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271BA and u/s 271AA.” 2.1. Additional grounds raised by the assessee

MICROSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 251/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nageswara Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. N.Swapna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

TDS credit. 5. That on the facts and in law, on disposal of this appeal material adjustment would be required in computing total income, tax, interest under section 234B of the Act. Necessary directions may please be given to the Ld. AO in this regard.” 12. At the time of argument, the assessee has only restricted his above argument

ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD vs. PATEL SEW JOINTVENTURE, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 742/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2023-24
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 801A(4)

234B of the Act. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned A.O. erred in charging interest u/s 234C of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Joint Venture between M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and M/s. SEW Infrastructure Ltd., executing infrastructure project for Narmada Valley Development

PATEL SEW JOINT VENTURE,TELANGANA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 884/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 801A(4)

234B of the Act. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned A.O. erred in charging interest u/s 234C of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Joint Venture between M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and M/s. SEW Infrastructure Ltd., executing infrastructure project for Narmada Valley Development

INFOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 198/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Dr.Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Srinivas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

TDS ') amounting to Rs. 3,01,408 attributable to Infor (Bangalore) Private Limited and Rs. 3,49,350 attributable to Approva Systems Private Limited ('transferor companies') which were amalgamated with Appellant with effect from 01 April 2015. 18. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO erred in not granting credit

ORBIS REAL ESTATE FUND I,HYDERABAD (AUTH. REP.) vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 - 2, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 785/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sourabh K, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(3)Section 154

234B and 234C despite the TDS Amount being sufficient to cover the entire tax liability computed as per contested grounds. (11) Without prejudice to the above, the Assessee has filed a rectification petition under section 154 for rectifying the mistakes apparent from record on account of tax liability computation which was not agreed upon and the Assessee has proceeded