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 246A(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi178Indore134Mumbai122Chennai114Pune87Raipur35Bangalore33Cochin26Dehradun26Jabalpur23Kolkata19Nagpur14Chandigarh13Surat11Panaji10Visakhapatnam9Hyderabad9Jaipur9Amritsar8Jodhpur7Lucknow7Karnataka4Ahmedabad4Cuttack3Allahabad2Agra1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)14Section 27512TDS9Section 271C8Section 2538Section 2468Section 406Section 246A6Section 143(3)4Deduction

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

4
Addition to Income4
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 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

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

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

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

246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the Grounds of Appeal separately enclosed. During the course of appellate proceedings the appellant submitted the following written submission as under: "With respect to the above cited subject, we hereby submit you following information along with statement of facts and grounds of appeal, for your kind perusal: 1. The learned assessing

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 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

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