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.

77 results for “TDS”+ Section 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai749 Delhi724 Bangalore284 Karnataka190 Kolkata177 Chennai133 Ahmedabad118 Chandigarh109 Jaipur77 Pune71 Cochin54 Indore54 Raipur42 Dehradun34 Hyderabad34 Cuttack33 Visakhapatnam32 Amritsar26 Jodhpur16 Telangana16 Surat13 Rajkot11 SC9 Allahabad8 Patna7 Guwahati6 Jabalpur6 Ranchi5 Panaji5 Agra4 Lucknow4 Punjab & Haryana3 J&K3 Kerala3 Calcutta2 Orissa1 Nagpur1 Varanasi1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 4054 Section 201(1)47 TDS47 Addition to Income35 Section 194C33 Deduction29 Section 20128 Section 143(3)24 Section 26323 Disallowance

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

section 194A and 194 H are fully declared in ITR, therefore the entire TDS claimed under section 194a and 194

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

Showing 1–20 of 77 · Page 1 of 4

22

Condonation of Delay14

ITA 1499/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed

ITAT Jaipur

28 Apr 2025

AY 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)

TDS under section 194-I of the Act. Thus, there is inconsistency in the stand of the CBDT as to whether

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 792/JPR/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Sept 2018AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goyal (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 17(2)Section 192Section 201(1)

TDS and only when the employees exercised this option and finally the shares are allotted in pursuant to the option exercised by the employees the liability to deduct tax at source would arise. The AO has not examined the fact whether during the year under consideration the option was exercised by the employees or it was exercised in the subsequent

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

TDS under the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act? 11 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company In order to bring clarity, it is imperative to go into the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The provision of the section is as follows: 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections

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

TDS under section 194-I of the Act and 30% of the balance amount of Rs.3,20,28,825/- on which

SANTOSH CHOUDHERY,BARAN vs. ITO WARD-BARAN, BARAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 555/JPR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.P. Chawla, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 194Section 194HSection 194Q

TDS amounting to Rs. 2,53,077/- and Rs. 43,503/- under section 194 H and 194 Q respectively. The said

ACIT, KOTA vs. VASTUVEDIK COLONIZERS & DEVLOPERS PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, ground no. (ii) of the revenue is dismissed and ground no

ITA 320/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Was Disallowance

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 40

TDS by the assessee under section 194C whereas the AO held that the provisions of section 194-I are applicable

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 was made in contravention of section u/s 194C of I.T Act. Whereas the appellant contended that contracts entered by the assessee are for supply of packing materials and not for carrying out any work and such purchase does not fall in the definition of WORK as specified in clause (iv) of the explanation of section 194C of the Income

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 was made in contravention of section u/s 194C of I.T Act. Whereas the appellant contended that contracts entered by the assessee are for supply of packing materials and not for carrying out any work and such purchase does not fall in the definition of WORK as specified in clause (iv) of the explanation of section 194C of the Income

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 was made in contravention of section u/s 194C of I.T Act. Whereas the appellant contended that contracts entered by the assessee are for supply of packing materials and not for carrying out any work and such purchase does not fall in the definition of WORK as specified in clause (iv) of the explanation of section 194C of the Income

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 was made in contravention of section u/s 194C of I.T Act. Whereas the appellant contended that contracts entered by the assessee are for supply of packing materials and not for carrying out any work and such purchase does not fall in the definition of WORK as specified in clause (iv) of the explanation of section 194C of the Income

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 was made in contravention of section u/s 194C of I.T Act. Whereas the appellant contended that contracts entered by the assessee are for supply of packing materials and not for carrying out any work and such purchase does not fall in the definition of WORK as specified in clause (iv) of the explanation of section 194C of the Income

ARVIND KUMAR AGRAWAL,GURGAON vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOEM TAX DEPARTMENT

In the results, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 139/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

TDS as per Section 194 IA has to be made by Sh. Arvind Kumar Agrawal but no TDS details have

ACIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. GNADHI VIDHYA MANDIR, CHURU

ITA 1016/JPR/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri M.L. Borad (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar (CIT)

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS), Jaipur vs. Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Churu the provision contained in section 194-I regarding tax deduction from rent of a building

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S ARIHANT TRADING CO., BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1113/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri K. C. Gupta (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

194(C)(6) of the Act, once the transporters have provided the PAN details to the deductor then no deduction is required to be made on freight payment to such transporters as per section 194C(6) of the Act. Regarding non filing of 3 ACIT, Bharatpur Vs. M/s Arihant Trading Co. Pahari, Bharatpur 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) vs. Divisional Forest Officer government which is sine qua non for attracting the provisions of section 194C. A total payment of Rs. 5,88,89,874/- has been paid to such VFPMC’S during the year. These VFPMC are working on no loss no profit basis. (Page 1 to 4) (d) Further these VFPMC are incorporated as “SELF WORKING

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) vs. Divisional Forest Officer government which is sine qua non for attracting the provisions of section 194C. A total payment of Rs. 5,88,89,874/- has been paid to such VFPMC’S during the year. These VFPMC are working on no loss no profit basis. (Page 1 to 4) (d) Further these VFPMC are incorporated as “SELF WORKING

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) vs. Divisional Forest Officer government which is sine qua non for attracting the provisions of section 194C. A total payment of Rs. 5,88,89,874/- has been paid to such VFPMC’S during the year. These VFPMC are working on no loss no profit basis. (Page 1 to 4) (d) Further these VFPMC are incorporated as “SELF WORKING

SH. SWAPNIL AGARWAL,1, AGARWAL DHARAM KANTA, ADARSH NAGAR, AJMER vs. ITO(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

ITA 160/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 201(1)Section 271CSection 274

Section 194-IA which casts an obligation on the buyer of immovable property to deduct TDS @ 1% where the purchase

MOUNT SHIVALIK INDUSTRIES LTD.,ALWAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

In the result the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 964/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (DCIT)

Section 194Section 194CSection 40

TDS u/s 194 and hence, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable and have been wrongly invoked