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.

64 results for “TDS”+ Section 194Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai371Delhi265Bangalore163Chandigarh120Nagpur106Kolkata103Chennai103Pune101Karnataka70Ahmedabad69Hyderabad69Jaipur64Cochin60Visakhapatnam48Cuttack40Raipur22Rajkot16Panaji15Jodhpur14Amritsar14Surat14Indore8Telangana8SC8Jabalpur7Dehradun7Kerala4Ranchi4Allahabad4Lucknow4Guwahati3Agra3J&K2Varanasi2Patna2

Key Topics

Section 201(1)79Section 20155Section 4045TDS45Deduction42Section 14736Addition to Income32Section 35A25Section 194A21Disallowance

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 h needs

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

ITA 694/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4

19
Penalty18
Section 25017
25 Oct 2024
AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Adv. & Shri Mukesh SoniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 195Section 263Section 90

TDS was neither required to be deducted under Section 194A nor under Section 195, hence the order passed under Section

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

ITA 623/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl. CIT )
Section 139Section 194CSection 40

TDS) within the time-limit specified in sub-section (2) of section 197A, that was a distinct omission or default for which a penalty is prescribed Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 272A for the delay, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA vs. ZILA PARISHAD, SAWAI MADHOPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 15/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.15 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JDHZ00055G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.16 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 Income Tax Officer(TDS), Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: J

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Jadish (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS), Kota passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A)r.w.s 194C & 194A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOTA vs. ZILA PARISHAD , SAWAI MADHOPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 16/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.15 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JDHZ00055G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.16 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 Income Tax Officer(TDS), Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: J

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Jadish (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS), Kota passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A)r.w.s 194C & 194A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short

M/S MANGLAM LAND BANK COMPANY,6TH FLOOR, APEX MALL, TONK ROAD, LAL KOTHI, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 130/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A..)For Respondent: Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 263Section 40

TDS on the interest amount so paid as per provision of section 194A of the Act and therefore the AO was required

ZILA PARISHAD,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, KOTA

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

ITA 224/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 249(2)

TDS, Kota, passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of r.w.s. 194C & 194A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. CIT FACLESS, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 17/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok KanodiyaFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS in the above cases. As per the provision of section 194A of the IT Act, 1961, the assessee has to deduct

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 68/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok KanodiyaFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS in the above cases. As per the provision of section 194A of the IT Act, 1961, the assessee has to deduct

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. MALVIYA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 175/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 May 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (ACIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143Section 194ASection 40

TDS thereon. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that interest paid by the assessee is governed by clause (v) of Sub-Section (3) of section 194A

MILLENIUM BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands partly allowed with no 6

ITA 866/JPR/2024[2016-17,2017-18,2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodiya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on interest payments made to HCCSL, in view of the express provisions of 194A (3) (iii) a of the Act. It was also submitted that the auditor of the company in his audit report has also not made any adverse comments in this regard. However, on the contrary, the AO was of the view that under this section

MAHAVEER OIL DISTRIBUTORS,SHAHPURA JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD BEHROR, BEHROR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1390/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: MS. Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: MS. Harshita Chauhan, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 68

TDS section as 194C instead of section 194A. I find that this is additional ground of appeal raised by the appellant

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

194A(3)(iii)(f). Therefore, no tax is required to be deducted at source at the time of paying interest to INDIRA GANDHI PANCHAYATI RAJ SANSTHAN. C.RAJASTHAN STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD The AO created a demand of Rs.90,946/- under section 201(1) and 201(1A) for non deduction of TDS

SHIV KRIPA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3

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

ITA 443/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

TDS and accordingly no tax was deducted in terms of section 194A. In support of claim, assessee had furnished certificate

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. PoddarFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 263Section 40Section 40A(7)

TDS u/s. 194A of the Act. Therefore, as per provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30 % of this

ROOP CHAND NAHAR,JAIPUR vs. CIT(APPEAL), NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 92/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri M. L. Borad (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 154Section 194ASection 197ASection 40

194A by deducting TDS wherever applicable and by filing form 15G/15H where the deductee had asked the assessee to not to deduct TDS from interest payment in view of provisions of section

ZILA PARISHAD,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, KOTA

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

ITA 148/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 May 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 250

TDS under section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the HUDCO. The ld. A/R, therefore, submitted

THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEE'S CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jun 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Gangwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)
Section 194ASection 197Section 201Section 80P

section 194A(1C). 2. For that the appellant craves right to alter any of the above grounds or to put additional grounds of appeal at any time prior to or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. The assessee is a Cooperative Society Bank and engaged in the business of banking which includes accepting deposits from its members

M/S RAJ AUTO WHEELS P .LTD.,AJMER vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, AJMER

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

ITA 397/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR
Section 131Section 145(3)Section 194ASection 40

TDS on the payments made to the said parties. Thus, there is violation of Provisions of S. 194A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, he disallowed entire amount of Rs.6,96,201/- u/s 40(a)(ia) and added to the total income of the assessee. 4.3 In the first appeal the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action

JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY,JAIPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1456/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)
Section 17(2)Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

TDS) "10. In the instant case, the assessee is a Cooperative Bank. Clause 5 of sub-section (3) of Section 194A