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.

11 results for “TDS”+ Section 246Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi177Indore138Mumbai117Chennai114Pune96Raipur53Bangalore33Cochin33Dehradun26Ahmedabad25Jabalpur23Chandigarh19Kolkata19Rajkot15Nagpur14Jodhpur14Visakhapatnam11Hyderabad11Surat11Jaipur10Panaji10Amritsar8Lucknow7Karnataka4Cuttack3Allahabad2Agra1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)14Section 27512Section 246A12Section 200A12TDS11Section 234E10Section 271C8Section 2538Section 2468Limitation/Time-bar

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 63/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(a)

TDS on the payments in question involving a canadian group entity as well as the ultimate recipient M/s. Soctronics India (P) Ltd. 4. Next come the impugned 271C proceedings taken recourse to by the learned lower authorities. A combined perusal of the instant case files suggests that the Assessing Officer had passed his all the penalty orders on 30.10.2015 after

6
Deduction4
Penalty4

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 66/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(a)

TDS on the payments in question involving a canadian group entity as well as the ultimate recipient M/s. Soctronics India (P) Ltd. 4. Next come the impugned 271C proceedings taken recourse to by the learned lower authorities. A combined perusal of the instant case files suggests that the Assessing Officer had passed his all the penalty orders on 30.10.2015 after

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 64/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(a)

TDS on the payments in question involving a canadian group entity as well as the ultimate recipient M/s. Soctronics India (P) Ltd. 4. Next come the impugned 271C proceedings taken recourse to by the learned lower authorities. A combined perusal of the instant case files suggests that the Assessing Officer had passed his all the penalty orders on 30.10.2015 after

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 65/HYD/2018[20009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(a)

TDS on the payments in question involving a canadian group entity as well as the ultimate recipient M/s. Soctronics India (P) Ltd. 4. Next come the impugned 271C proceedings taken recourse to by the learned lower authorities. A combined perusal of the instant case files suggests that the Assessing Officer had passed his all the penalty orders on 30.10.2015 after

V-SECURE FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1906/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 V- Secure Financial Services Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Ward – 17(4), Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Shri T. Rajendra PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 246(1)(a)Section 246A

246A with effect from V-Secure Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 01/06/2015 and the appeal is maintainable from then onwards and against the order passed u/s 200A. 4. After considering the above submissions, ld. CIT(A) brought on record that order u/s 200A(1) was always appealable order as per the provisions of section 246(1)(a) and observed that relevant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. GAIAN SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 569/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Sri SVD Vijay Bhaskar, AdvFor Respondent: Sri Srikanth S, D.R
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 69Section 69C

TDS provisions are not applicable and consequential disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not sustainable. The CIT(A) accepted assessee’s contentions and deleted the addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds

MSV SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1491/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Years: 2013-14 Msv It Solutions Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Tds Ltd., Hyderabad. Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aahcm6063B Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad Revenue By: Shri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2018 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am:

For Appellant: Shri T. Rajendra PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 246ASection 246A(1)(a)Section 249(3)

TDS GHAZIABAD whereby fee under section 234E was levied for the periods prior to 1st June 2015 through an intimation under section 200A , even though section 200A was amended with effective from 1st June 2015 containing a reference to section 234E.” 4. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Before

RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 593/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Ramky Infrastructure Ltd, Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan:Aaacr8627B Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 80I

TDS as per the relevant provisions of the Act. 7. Any other ground or grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing”. 3. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted the following written submissions: “1. In the present case, the AO passed assessment orders for asst. years 2003-04 to 2009-10 on various dates denying the benefit

14 REELS VENKATBOYANAPALLI JV,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 617/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.617 & 969/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2017-2018 14 Reels The Dcit, Central Venkatboyanapalli Jv, Circle-1(3), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad – 500 033. Pin – 500 004. Pan Aaaaz2224L Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा /Assessee By : Mrs. K Prabhabati, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit(A), Hyderabad- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 08.02.2025 & 13.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2017-2018, Respectively.

For Appellant: Mrs. K Prabhabati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 250

TDS of Rs.42,525. 4 ITA.Nos.617 & 969/Hyd./2025 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 4. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years for want of prosecution. Thus

R.S.BROTHERS RETAIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 246A

246A of the IT Act. There is no :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 125 & 126 /Hyd/18 provision in law for raising demand u/s 201(1) on presumptive basis. 6. For these and any other grounds, it is prayed that the demand u Is 201 (1) & 201(lA) be deleted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee engaged

R.S.BROTHERS RETAIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/HYD/2018[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Feb 2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 246A

246A of the IT Act. There is no :- 3 -: ITA Nos. 125 & 126 /Hyd/18 provision in law for raising demand u/s 201(1) on presumptive basis. 6. For these and any other grounds, it is prayed that the demand u Is 201 (1) & 201(lA) be deleted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee engaged