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.

73 results for “TDS”+ Section 195(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,078Mumbai1,015Bangalore603Chennai469Ahmedabad201Kolkata172Karnataka121Pune98Hyderabad86Chandigarh83Jaipur73Visakhapatnam49Indore39Rajkot33Cochin29Cuttack21Lucknow20Raipur18Dehradun16Surat10Nagpur8Jodhpur7Allahabad6Jabalpur6Telangana6SC5Panaji5Amritsar4Agra4Calcutta3Guwahati2Kerala2Punjab & Haryana1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)63Addition to Income59Section 4051Section 14734TDS31Disallowance26Section 26324Section 19521Section 201(1)20Section 14A

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 166/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS, in view of insertion of Explanation to Section 195 by Finance Act, 20212 with retrospective effect from 01- 04-1962. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 26-11-2018 mentioning therein as to why the above expenses shall not be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act and added the same

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

18
Survey u/s 133A18
Deduction17

MODERN THREADS (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 198/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Madhukar Garg (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 245R(2)Section 40

195(1) and the provisions of section 40(a)(i) therefore cannot be invoked in the instant case. Further, out of total commission payment of Rs 99,84,436, an amount of Rs 1,55,867/- has been paid to a resident entity on which TDS has already been done which is again out of the ambit of provisions

M/S MODERN THREADS (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Madhukar Garg (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 245R(2)Section 40

195(1) and the provisions of section 40(a)(i) therefore cannot be invoked in the instant case. Further, out of total commission payment of Rs 99,84,436, an amount of Rs 1,55,867/- has been paid to a resident entity on which TDS has already been done which is again out of the ambit of provisions

M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1494/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Sept 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Jai Singh (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 234BSection 40

TDS therefore as per provisions of section 195 read with section 40(a)(ia) the expenses of Rs. Rs.1,54,37,262/- on account of selling commission, Rs.17,91,586/- on account of exhibition expenses and Rs.88,410/- on account of testing expenses paid to non-residents cannot be allowed. Thus Rs.1,73,17,258/- are disallowed

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 652/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 195Section 40

TDS. 6. That the A.O had cited CBDT's circular in this regard relied on explanation 2 to section 9(1))(vii)(b) of the Act and rejected the assessee's claim, resulting in an addition of Rs.28,40,000/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5.3.2 It is important to note here that the Finance

SUBHASH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1122/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)Section 9(2)

section 195 of the Act? ITA 1122/JP/2016_ 6 Subhash Chand Gupta Vs ACIT The Ld. AO has reject the assessee claim and disallowance of payment of sales commission to NRI without deducting TDS

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

Section 195 vs. Form No. 26-51 3CEB along with invoice and Form No. 15CA showing that no deduction u/s 195 is required to be made on certain amount reported in Form No. 3CEB. 6 Papers relating to commission payable to Directors 52-54 7 Details of party wise rent expenses as per financial statement 55 8 Copy of Balance

SOCIAL WORK & RESEARCH CENTRE,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/JPR/2018[2015-16 (27 Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2018

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain (CA)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (JCIT)
Section 195Section 200ASection 234E

6 Social Work & Research Centre, Jaipur. for TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 01.06.2015. There is no quarrel on the point that the delay in filing the statement upto 01.06.2015 would not attract the provisions of section 234E as the amendment in section 200A enable the AO to levy the fee under section 234E with effect from

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

ITA 784/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 10Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

TDS merely because of the explanation to Section 195 of the Act as it is a prerequisite contention for invoking provisions of Section 195 of the Act that the payment is chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the recipient. Needless to say, the assessee be afforded an opportunity of hearing before deciding the issue. In the result

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

M/S. SATYAM POLYPLAST,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

ITA 158/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (ACIT)
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40

6 Satyam Polyplast vs. DCIT (A) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (B) "fees for technical services" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation2 to clause (vii) of sub- section (1) of section 9;” The payment in question is commission and prima facie not royalty

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

ITA 170/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 195(1)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A

TDS in compliance of provisions of section 195(1) of the Act. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the authorities below erred as regards said disallowance, same having been made contrary to the law and a decision already in favour of the appellant. In this regard, Ld. AR has relied on decision in ITA No. 60/JP/2019 dated

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 9a(1)(vii)

6 Derewala Industries Ltd., Jaipur. Explanation 1.—Income accruing or arising outside India shall not be deemed to be received 14 in India within the meaning of this section by reason only of the fact that it is taken into account in a balance sheet prepared in India. Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 528/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 271CSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

section 195 of Act, they were not liable to be taxed in India. Other relevant recent decisions that payment for software is not Royalty and therefore, "when no tax is chargeable under the Act" no TDS is required, are: (1) GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd Vs. CIT & Anr (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) (2) Anusha Investment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

6) were also issued to M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd on 09.07.2013 & 05.10.2018 whose account was report as suspicious but the same were returned unserved by the postal authorities with remarks ‘ not known’ / ‘moved’. Thereafter, KYC of M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd was called for from the UCO Bank and it is noticed that the address given

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

ITA 377/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 133A

section 133A (6) empowered the Income Tax Authority to record the statement on oath, therefore the recording of statement u/s 131 in this case was not ultra-vires. 6 Whether facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating the in other important fact that during the assessment proceedings of the assessee

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)

195 15% 169348804 81287425 Commission 234463891 194H 11.33% 26564759 12751084 Rent 273153222 194I 22.26% 61896520 2971032 Others 1368936161 194C 11.33% 155100467 74448224 Total 4065214831 510891043 218488400 As none of the expenditures was falling within the ambit of section 192 of the Act, therefore, the said decision of the Tribunal would not help the case of the revenue for the purpose

JC FASHIONS,JAIPUR vs. ITO (T & J), JAIPUR

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

ITA 993/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 40

TDS as per provisions of the section 195 of the Act and income is chargeable to tax u/s 9 o the IT Act. 2. The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the ground on or before the hearing.” 5. The representatives of the parties have adopted the same argument as, in ITA No 993/JP/2016

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 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 263 deserves to be set aside on this issue. 3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur vide order dated 20/03/2024 passed under Section 263 of the LT. Act, erred in remanding the ground of revision