Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

359 results for “TDS”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,636 Mumbai4,255 Bangalore2,392 Chennai1,721 Pune1,036 Kolkata928 Patna744 Ahmedabad687 Hyderabad580 Jaipur359 Chandigarh352 Cochin310 Nagpur263 Raipur244 Indore232 Visakhapatnam143 Lucknow135 Rajkot133 Surat129 Jodhpur108 Cuttack100 Ranchi82 Karnataka65 Panaji64 Agra61 Amritsar59 Dehradun55 Guwahati47 Jabalpur41 SC25 Allahabad19 Kerala15 Calcutta14 Varanasi12 Telangana10 Himachal Pradesh6 Rajasthan5 J&K4 Orissa2 Punjab & Haryana1 Uttarakhand1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income58 TDS54 Section 143(3)53 Section 201(1)51 Deduction38 Section 20132 Disallowance29 Section 153A28 Section 142(1)27 Section 35A

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

TDS was deducted as per provisions of the Act. It is mentioned that the threshold limit of deducting TDS u/s 194C

Showing 1–20 of 359 · Page 1 of 18

...

26

Condonation of Delay25

INFOOBJECTS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

For Appellant: Sh. Naman Maloo, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 201Section 40Section 92B(2)

deduct TDS but had not deducted TDS on the payment. The company paid business promotion expenditure of Rs. 6,99,314/- to promote

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

ITA 694/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Adv. & Shri Mukesh SoniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 195Section 263Section 90

TDS deducted and deposited\nonly on Rs. 13,92,83,709/-. Hence TDS not deducted on\nRs. 11,33,39,800/- (Rs.255623509-Rs.139283709

KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN,PACHPAHAR vs. DCIT-ACIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 280/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 194J

TDS us 194H of the Act is duly deducted by the buyers who have also deducted TDS on the purchase

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

deduction of TDS on all foreign remittance (iii) Non-deduction of TDS on commission paid to directors (iv) Non-deduction

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1171/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

deduction of TDS is a fall out of and consequent of the first statutory obligation to not deduct TDS on receipt

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. ALWAR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD., ALWAR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 634/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shr. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR a

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40Section 80P(2)(d)

TDS deduction. Thus purchases of Rs.35,49,905/- without TDS is entertained out of total transactions of Rs.6,49,38,378/-. Hence

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMIITED ,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 321/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

For Appellant: Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS has not been deducted. Thus, assessee failed to deduct TDS under the provisions of section 194C of the Act. In this

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMITED ,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 325/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

For Appellant: Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS has not been deducted. Thus, assessee failed to deduct TDS under the provisions of section 194C of the Act. In this

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMITED,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 324/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

For Appellant: Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS has not been deducted. Thus, assessee failed to deduct TDS under the provisions of section 194C of the Act. In this

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMIITED,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 323/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

For Appellant: Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS has not been deducted. Thus, assessee failed to deduct TDS under the provisions of section 194C of the Act. In this

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMIITED ,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

For Appellant: Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS has not been deducted. Thus, assessee failed to deduct TDS under the provisions of section 194C of the Act. In this

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 359/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

TDS is to be deducted or not on the EDC providing reasonable cause to the assessee not to deduct the TDS

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 360/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

TDS is to be deducted or not on the EDC providing reasonable cause to the assessee not to deduct the TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 358/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

TDS is to be deducted or not on the EDC providing reasonable cause to the assessee not to deduct the TDS

RTDC ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -TDS, JAIPUR

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

ITA 410/JPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Avocate&For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS is required to be deducted but the assessee has not deducted or incorrectly deducted the TDS. The assessee had also

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), JAIPUR

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

ITA 573/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271C

deduction of TDS on interest payment and (ii) interest for non deduction or short deduction of TDS and raised total

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 474/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

TDS was to be deducted @ 20% but no TDS has been deducted, therefore, the TDS liability of Rs. 33,29,700/- was calculated

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 475/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

TDS was to be deducted @ 20% but no TDS has been deducted, therefore, the TDS liability of Rs. 33,29,700/- was calculated

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 473/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

TDS was to be deducted @ 20% but no TDS has been deducted, therefore, the TDS liability of Rs. 33,29,700/- was calculated