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.

126 results for “TDS”+ Section 201clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,350 Mumbai1,206 Bangalore1,048 Chennai544 Kolkata315 Pune160 Raipur138 Nagpur131 Jaipur126 Ahmedabad121 Hyderabad103 Indore92 Cochin64 Karnataka62 Chandigarh60 Jodhpur45 Lucknow43 Rajkot37 Kerala28 Panaji26 Visakhapatnam22 Surat22 Agra18 Cuttack18 Patna17 SC13 Jabalpur10 Guwahati9 Ranchi8 Amritsar8 Dehradun7 Himachal Pradesh6 Telangana5 Varanasi4 Rajasthan3 Orissa3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 J&K1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)154 Section 20190 TDS74 Section 271C55 Section 194C46 Deduction45 Addition to Income41 Section 143(3)34 Section 80I31 Section 147

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 126 · Page 1 of 7

29

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

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

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

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

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

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 243/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37

TDS being compensatory in nature was an allowable\ndeduction under section 37(1) and therefore, impugned disallowance\nwas to be deleted - Held, yes [Paras 8 and 9] [In favour of assessee]...”\n2.4.ii Resolve Salvage & Fire India (P.) Ltd. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 196\n(Mumbai - Trib.)[CLC - Page 56]\n"....Section 37(1), read with section 201

RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY,JAIPUR vs. IT WARD -1(1), JAIPUR

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

ITA 808/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Rajvanshi,CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

section 201(1A) amounting to ₹23,46,390 may kindly be waived in full. 4. The TDS department adjusted the demand

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 591/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 250

section 201(1) of the Act. AY Interest paid TDS u/s 201(1) Interest u/s 201(1A) 2016-17 Rs.81

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 592/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 250

section 201(1) of the Act. AY Interest paid TDS u/s 201(1) Interest u/s 201(1A) 2016-17 Rs.81

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 593/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 250

section 201(1) of the Act. AY Interest paid TDS u/s 201(1) Interest u/s 201(1A) 2016-17 Rs.81

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

ITO(TDS) ALWAR, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABA MOHAN RAMJI KALIKHOLI WALAMILKPUR GURJAR, ALWAR

9. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals filed by the department deserve to be dismissed

ITA 739/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 38

TDS by the payer. Accordingly, the demand was raised u/s 201 of the Act and interest u/s 201(1A) was calculated on the same. It was held that the fact remains that the taxes are paid as advance tax for BNY Mellon, and to that extent, the assessee tax-deductor cannot be saddled with a tax withholding demand under section

ITO (TDS) ALWAR, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABA MOHAN RAMJI KALIKHOLI WALAMILKPUR GURJAR, ALWAR

9. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals filed by the department deserve to be dismissed

ITA 746/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 38

TDS by the payer. Accordingly, the demand was raised u/s 201 of the Act and interest u/s 201(1A) was calculated on the same. It was held that the fact remains that the taxes are paid as advance tax for BNY Mellon, and to that extent, the assessee tax-deductor cannot be saddled with a tax withholding demand under section

ITO (TDS) ALWAR, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABA MOHAN RAMJI KALIKHOLI WALAMILKPUR GURJAR, ALWAR

9. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals filed by the department deserve to be dismissed

ITA 745/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 38

TDS by the payer. Accordingly, the demand was raised u/s 201 of the Act and interest u/s 201(1A) was calculated on the same. It was held that the fact remains that the taxes are paid as advance tax for BNY Mellon, and to that extent, the assessee tax-deductor cannot be saddled with a tax withholding demand under section