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.

31 results for “TDS”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai516Delhi385Bangalore241Hyderabad77Kolkata71Ahmedabad65Pune51Chennai34Jaipur31Karnataka27Raipur23Agra17Chandigarh15Indore15Dehradun11Visakhapatnam9Jodhpur7Nagpur6Lucknow6Surat6Cochin5Rajkot5Allahabad4Cuttack3Ranchi3Jabalpur3Guwahati2Telangana2SC1Amritsar1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)23Deduction22Addition to Income21Section 4018Section 80I16Section 234A16Disallowance15Section 14714Section 143(1)12Section 263

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 involved is only 1% of the expense the additional tax liability comes to 33.99% of the sum which is further increased by levy of interest under section 234B and 234C

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

11
TDS11
Section 2507

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 for payment M/s JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur made to non-resident having no PE. The disallowance so made & confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), is contrary to the provisions of law and facts. 3. 20,67,054/- : The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case

M/S. RATAN CONDUCTORS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

ITA 1259/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40

TDS thereon by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. (a) The assessee firm paid, interest of Rs. 2,98,826/- to NBFC. M/s Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. and Rs.14,74,943/- to M/s Future Capital another NBFC. The assessee firm raised loan 2 ITA 1259/JP/2019_ Ratan Conductors Vs ACIT from said NBFCs

MUKESH RUSTOGI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

ITA 662/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: The End Of Year & Tax Has Been Paid By The Recipient. Hence The Disallowance Addition So Made & Confirmed By The Cit (A) Is Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts. Hence The Same May Kindly Be Deleted In Full.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Gupta (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 197(1)Section 234BSection 40

TDS, on the amount which has been paid before the end of year and tax has been paid by the recipient. Hence the disallowance addition so made and confirmed by the CIT (A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts. Hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 2 Shri Mukesh Rustogi

KRYA VIKRAYA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED DEOLI,DEOLI TONK vs. ITO TONK, TONK

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the order of the AO is confirmed

ITA 135/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Mrs. S. K. Gogra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234aSection 250Section 80P

234C which is unlawful, unjustifiable and against the natural justice hence deserve to be quashed. 6. The appellant prays your honour to add, amend alter, delete all or any ground of appeal on or before hearing.” 2.2 In this appeal, the ld. AR of the assessee raised additional ground under Rule 11 of ITAT Rules, 1963 which reads as under

SHRI SUNDER LAL ADVANI,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

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

ITA 356/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 40aSection 44A

TDS on interest by brushing aside assessee’s reasonable explanations and submissions and the learned CIT (Appeals), Kota also erred in confirming the same to the extent of Rs. 55,820/- without there being any basis. 4. That the ld. Assessing Officer further erred in disapproving the carried forward Speculation loss of A.Y. 2011-12 and making an addition

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

234C (Rs. 2,55,24,706/-) - Short Grant of TDS )Rs. 22,947/-) Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). In response to the notice issued under section

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

ITA 620/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

TDS in this year only since was shown in AS 26 of this year only. 3. As per Section 22, “Annual Letting value” which was available in this case, hence was rightly declared. The impugned disallowance kindly be deleted in full.” 9.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the findings recorded by the authorities below

PANKAJ RASTOGI,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A) NFAC, JAIPUR

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

ITA 4/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jul 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Manik (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 192Section 199Section 205

TDS made. 6. Per Contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and also admitted that there is no fault of the assessee as employer has not deducted tax but not paid to the credit of the Government and in accordance with the provisions of section 205 no recovery be made on the assessee. The credit should

DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

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

ITA 278/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Rahis Mohammed, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 2Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 5

TDS on interest paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Even otherwise, the claim of the assessee is allowable u/s 37(1) read with section second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) further read with first proviso to section 201(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01-04-2013 in view

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 484/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 234A

TDS on interest payment of Rs. 15,97,572/- by ignoring the facts, settled legal position etc. Hence, the disallowance so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 5. The AO has grossly

MEHAR CHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 194ASection 5Section 56

section 56 of IT Act, 1961 and the CIT(A) has erred in not giving any finding thereon. 3. The Ld. AO has erred in law as well on the facts and circumstances of the case in not giving the credit of TDS of Rs.56,122/- u/s 194A and self assessment tax of Rs.7,230/- u/s 140A

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 197/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 43B

234C of the Act. The\nappellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest,\nso charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in\nfull.\n3\nITA Nos.197 to 199/JP/2025\nAhluwalia Erectors & Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.\n6. The appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter any of the grounds

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 43B

234C of the Act. The\nappellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest,\nso charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in\nfull.\n3\nITA Nos.197 to 199/JP/2025\nAhluwalia Erectors & Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.\n6. The appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter any of the grounds

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 43B

234C of the Act. The\nappellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest,\nso charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in\nfull.\n3\nITA Nos.197 to 199/JP/2025\nAhluwalia Erectors & Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.\n6. The appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter any of the grounds

ACIT, KOTA vs. URBAN IMPROVEMNT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2017AY 2012-13
Section 10(20)Section 144Section 147

TDS from the payments to Shri S.N. Kumawat towards legal expenses; (xvii) Deleting addition of Rs. 5,89,43,321/- on account of cheques issued, but time barred due to not being presented for payment; (xviii) Deleting addition of Rs. 8,03,93,856.79 made u/s 69A without appreciating the facts mentioned by the AO in the assessment order

URBAN IPROVEMENT TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2017AY 2012-13
Section 10(20)Section 144Section 147

TDS from the payments to Shri S.N. Kumawat towards legal expenses; (xvii) Deleting addition of Rs. 5,89,43,321/- on account of cheques issued, but time barred due to not being presented for payment; (xviii) Deleting addition of Rs. 8,03,93,856.79 made u/s 69A without appreciating the facts mentioned by the AO in the assessment order

URBAN IPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2017AY 2010-11
Section 10(20)Section 144Section 147

TDS from the payments to Shri S.N. Kumawat towards legal expenses; (xvii) Deleting addition of Rs. 5,89,43,321/- on account of cheques issued, but time barred due to not being presented for payment; (xviii) Deleting addition of Rs. 8,03,93,856.79 made u/s 69A without appreciating the facts mentioned by the AO in the assessment order