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.

29 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai291Delhi216Kolkata95Bangalore94Chennai71Ahmedabad34Hyderabad29Jaipur28Karnataka19Rajkot19Cuttack19Chandigarh14Pune9Cochin9Raipur6Patna6Surat5Lucknow4Telangana4Amritsar4Allahabad3Calcutta3Visakhapatnam3Jodhpur3Nagpur3Kerala2Indore2SC2Jabalpur1Ranchi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 4051Section 194H37Disallowance27Addition to Income21Section 143(3)18TDS18Section 14A16Section 143(1)11Section 143(2)10Depreciation

NIPPON KOEI CO. LTD.,BEGUMPET vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 2, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 670/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.670/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Nippon Koei Co. Ltd Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Taxation)-2, Pan:Aabcn8434F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gsv Prasad, Anand Swaroop & S K Mohanty, Cas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri GSV Prasad, Anand Swaroop and S K Mohanty, CAsFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 201

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 2017
Deduction7
Section 37(1)
Section 40
Section 44D

section 194H of the Act and failure to do so warranted disallowance under section 40(a) of the Act. Accordingly

MANNE HAREESH,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 661/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2013-14 Manne Hareesh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 103, Sita Mansion, 1-10- Ward-6(2), 104/14, Mayur Marg, Hyderabad. Begumpet, Hyderabad. Pan: Admpm 6479 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri T. Ramamurthy, Ca Revenue By: Sri Nilanjan Dey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2019 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Sri T. Ramamurthy, CAFor Respondent: Sri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194HSection 194JSection 40

disallowed salary expenditure incurred for Rs. 47,50,000/- by treating it as commission paid for selling goods invoking the provisions of section 194H

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

disallowed U/s.40A(3) and is added to the total income of the assessee. 14.1 On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) had decided the issue at pages 70 to 74 of the order wherein he observed as under : “The claim of the appellant that the payments have been made by the M/s. DLF group is false and completely unsubstantiated and no confirmation

ANJANI PORTLAND CEMENT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1493/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Ms. Geetindar Mann
Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)

194H. 13 ITA Nos. 1305 & 1493/Hyd/14 & CO No. 13/H/16 Anjani Portland Cement Ltd. 19. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by holding that it is a common practice to call the commission paid as discount to avoid TDS provisions, therefore, the AO is correct in applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and accordingly

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S ANJANI PORTLAND CEMENT LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1305/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Ms. Geetindar Mann
Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)

194H. 13 ITA Nos. 1305 & 1493/Hyd/14 & CO No. 13/H/16 Anjani Portland Cement Ltd. 19. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by holding that it is a common practice to call the commission paid as discount to avoid TDS provisions, therefore, the AO is correct in applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and accordingly

M/S HIL LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1703/HYD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

disallowed the amount of Rs.9,23,76,914/- and added back to the income returned by the assessee. 5. Against the order of AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. Ld.CIT(A) held that as per Section 194H

M/S HIL LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2, , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1701/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

disallowed the amount of Rs.9,23,76,914/- and added back to the income returned by the assessee. 5. Against the order of AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. Ld.CIT(A) held that as per Section 194H

HIL LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 555/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

disallowed the amount of Rs.9,23,76,914/- and added back to the income returned by the assessee. 5. Against the order of AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. Ld.CIT(A) held that as per Section 194H

M/S HIL LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1702/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

disallowed the amount of Rs.9,23,76,914/- and added back to the income returned by the assessee. 5. Against the order of AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. Ld.CIT(A) held that as per Section 194H

HIL LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 647/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

disallowed the amount of Rs.9,23,76,914/- and added back to the income returned by the assessee. 5. Against the order of AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. Ld.CIT(A) held that as per Section 194H

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HEAD INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1014/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

section 194H are not applicable and the decision in the said years has been followed by him in the AY under consideration. He submitted that the CIT(A) has also recorded that the Gateways have offered the payment retained by them in their respective returns of income and, therefore, no disallowance

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HEAD INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2372/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mitra
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

section 194H are not applicable and the decision in the said years has been followed by him in the AY under consideration. He submitted that the CIT(A) has also recorded that the Gateways have offered the payment retained by them in their respective returns of income and, therefore, no disallowance

BALA REDDY GOPU, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 455/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 14ASection 17(1)(iv)Section 192Section 194HSection 44A

section 17(1)(iv) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee and whole commission income brought to tax. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 3. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee contested that AO had incorrectly treated the commission income as salary as the assessee had followed

SURAM SRINIVAS,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1923/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2012-13 Suram Srinivas, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 15(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Avyps 8511 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri B. Shanthi Kumar Revenue By: Shri Sunku Srinivas Date Of Hearing: 01/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/01/2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B. Shanthi KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 194HSection 40Section 68

section 194H are not attracted in this case and, therefore, the disallowance made u/s 40(a(ia) is also not called

GAUTHAM KUMAR SUNKATA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 742/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.742/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Gautam Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Sunkata, Ward 4(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Cfwps7723F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 194HSection 249(2)Section 270ASection 40a

section 194H and 194C of the Act, thus, an amount of Rs. 36,23,143/- being 30% on (Rs. 79,11,807+ Rs. 41,65,337/-) was disallowed

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE PRASAD JV, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 457/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sushee Prasad Jv, Hyderabad, Income Tax, Circle – 6(1), Plot No.246/A/2, Road Hyderabad. No.12, Mla Colony, Banjara Hills, Telangana – 500034. Pan : Aapas3540R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sesha Srinivas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sesha Srinivas, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40a

disallowance of 30% was unwarranted. 10. Section 40 provides as follows Amounts not deductible. 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 41[38], the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession",— (a) in the case of any assessee— 42[(i)43 44any interest

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA PRABHA PUBLICATIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1108/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Andhra Prabha Publications Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad Pan – Aafca 7213B Appellant Respondent Revenue By: Smt. M. Narmada Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao Date Of Hearing: 23/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2018 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(v)Section 40Section 43B

section 194H of the Act, on the amount of Rs. 1,51,55,998/- debited in the P&L 2 I.T.A. No. 1108/Hyd/2017 Andhra Prabha Publications Ltd., Hyd. A/c towards sales discount and commission under the head ‘selling and distribution’ expenses. ii. Requirement of disallowance

M/S COUNTRY CLUB (INDIA) LTD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1504/HYD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Addl. Cit, Range-1 Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Country Club Hospitality & Income Tax, Circle 1(2) Vs Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 200Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43B

194H are not applicable to payments made of Rs.5,68,414/- towards Travel Agent Commission. 21. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 3,57,069/- towards Programme Expenses Payable. 22. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194J

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB (I) LTD,, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1654/HYD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Addl. Cit, Range-1 Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Country Club Hospitality & Income Tax, Circle 1(2) Vs Holidays Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc 9376 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 200Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43B

194H are not applicable to payments made of Rs.5,68,414/- towards Travel Agent Commission. 21. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194C are not applicable to payments made of Rs. 3,57,069/- towards Programme Expenses Payable. 22. The Ld AO ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 194J

SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1086/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

disallowance of commission expenses without appreciating the fact that, the assessee has furnished relevant details of commission paid to various parties for procuring business to the assessee and further submitted that, the TDS required to be deducted under Section 194H