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.

225 results for “TDS”+ Section 201clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,554 Delhi1,537 Bangalore1,096 Chennai646 Kolkata462 Indore368 Ahmedabad285 Pune285 Karnataka257 Jaipur225 Cochin203 Raipur177 Hyderabad175 Nagpur155 Chandigarh127 Cuttack88 Surat63 Visakhapatnam63 Lucknow59 Rajkot57 Jodhpur56 Jabalpur50 Ranchi40 Panaji36 Kerala28 Telangana27 Agra25 Amritsar25 Dehradun24 Allahabad18 Patna17 SC13 Guwahati10 Varanasi8 Himachal Pradesh6 Rajasthan3 Orissa3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 J&K1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)166 Section 201104 Section 271C90 TDS86 Addition to Income42 Section 194C39 Deduction36 Condonation of Delay29 Section 4027 Penalty

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

ITA 173/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mrs. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 292BSection 5

Section 201(1A).However, it is important to note that:\nSection 201 is a charging provision for TDS defaults; it does

Showing 1–20 of 225 · Page 1 of 12

...

27

Section 143(3)22

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

section 133(6) of the IT Act, 1961 was called vide issue of notice dated 04.07.2016. The AO completed assessment by passing order dated 29/03/2017 u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 treating the assessee in default for (i) non/short deduction of TDS

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

TDS. Accordingly, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 201 and 201(1A) by holding the assessee as assessee-in-default

RAMDAS TRADING COMPANY,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS, ALWAR

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

ITA 746/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 May 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (Addl.CIT)

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 206C

TDS. Further, it is not a case that the show-cause has been issued under section 201(1) and the final

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

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

ITA 18/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 133ASection 153Section 201(3)Section 206(6)Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 206C(6)Section 271C

TDS-3 Vs M/s Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin of the order passed U/s 201(1)(201(1A) of the Act prior to the amendment vide Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01/4/2010 whereby subsection (3) was inserted to Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

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

ITA 19/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 133ASection 153Section 201(3)Section 206(6)Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 206C(6)Section 271C

TDS-3 Vs M/s Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin of the order passed U/s 201(1)(201(1A) of the Act prior to the amendment vide Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01/4/2010 whereby subsection (3) was inserted to Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

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

ITA 17/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 133ASection 153Section 201(3)Section 206(6)Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 206C(6)Section 271C

TDS-3 Vs M/s Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin of the order passed U/s 201(1)(201(1A) of the Act prior to the amendment vide Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01/4/2010 whereby subsection (3) was inserted to Section

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 demand u/s 201(1) Rs. 1,17,77,975/- & interest u/s 201(1A) Rs. 45,14,230/-) on the grounds that payments made to AOPs namely Ecco Development committees (EDCs) Van Surksha and Prabandh Samiti (VFPMCs) are not contract payments under the provisions of section

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 demand u/s 201(1) Rs. 1,17,77,975/- & interest u/s 201(1A) Rs. 45,14,230/-) on the grounds that payments made to AOPs namely Ecco Development committees (EDCs) Van Surksha and Prabandh Samiti (VFPMCs) are not contract payments under the provisions of section

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 demand u/s 201(1) Rs. 1,17,77,975/- & interest u/s 201(1A) Rs. 45,14,230/-) on the grounds that payments made to AOPs namely Ecco Development committees (EDCs) Van Surksha and Prabandh Samiti (VFPMCs) are not contract payments under the provisions of section

MANISH GOVIND DANGI,UDIAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE (INTL.TAX), JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 118/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 194Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

TDS)/ NOTIFICATION / 2016-17], DATED 2-12-2016 as regards the contention that the why the same is not filed electronically online. The said notification reads as under:- “1. As per first proviso sub-section (1) of section 201

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. While invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) ld. AO did not treat the assessee in default within the meaning of section 201

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 was unintentional and without any mela-fied intention. Further as per the proviso to sub-section 1 to section 201

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 was unintentional and without any mela-fied intention. Further as per the proviso to sub-section 1 to section 201

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)

TDS u/s 194C of the Act and disallowed 30% of the said expenditure. vi. Hence, we would like to conclude by stating that as per the proviso of section 40(a)(ia) read with section 201

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied under section 271C is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 1135/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Ashok (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT) a

Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

TDS) passed under section 201(1) & 201(IA) of the Act holding the assessee bank to be in default for not deducting

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Ishita Farsaiya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 191Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

section 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- ““1. Ground No. 1 - The order passed by the learned TDS

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC-TDS/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2023AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 201Section 3(35)

TDS is governed by the provisions of section 201(1A)(ii) of the 1961 Act read with Rule 119A(b) of the Income

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, we confirm the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the appeal of

ITA 145/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2017AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Ashok(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Prem Prakash Meena(JCIT)

Section 10(5)Section 201(1)

TDS, Jaipur 2. The learned CIT erred in passing an order under section 201(1)/ 201(1A) and in raising

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RDB CARS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

ITA 140/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Khandelwal (C.A)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 201(1)Section 249(2)Section 40

201(1) of the Act, states that any person liable to deduct TDS on the income distributed makes default in the deduction and/or payment of TDS, shall be treated as 'assessee in default" However, the assessee would not be deemed to be an assessee in default if payee: i) has furnished his return of income under section