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.

86 results for “TDS”+ Section 40A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi553Mumbai497Chennai265Bangalore234Kolkata226Ahmedabad125Hyderabad108Pune94Jaipur86Visakhapatnam57Indore53Chandigarh47Raipur43Rajkot38Cuttack37Cochin28Surat23Amritsar19Lucknow18Guwahati16Nagpur15Patna13Jodhpur12Agra8Karnataka7Ranchi5Varanasi4Jabalpur4Dehradun4Allahabad3Calcutta3Panaji2Telangana1SC1

Key Topics

Addition to Income73Disallowance55Section 4053Section 143(3)52Section 145(3)41TDS37Section 153A28Section 6826Section 35A26Section 263

LALITA KUMARI,ANTA DISTRICT BARAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. We also note from the records that both the payees have been paid interest after deducting the TDS

Showing 1–20 of 86 · Page 1 of 5

23
Deduction21
Section 142(1)18

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)

2) to section 9(1) (vil) so as to deemed to accrue or arise in India Revenue's Appeal dismissed." 8.7 NEC HCL System Technologies Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 46 CCH 0396 DelTrib "TDS-Non-deduction-Disallowance u/s 40a

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

ITA 434/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L.Chandel (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 142Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 69C

40A(3) has been rightly deleted by the ld CIT(A). The ground no. 2 of revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 29. Regarding ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of addition on account of unexplained expenditure of Rs 1,18,34,723 under Section 69C, briefly the facts of the case are that

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 184/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Suhani Maharwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40ASection 40aSection 68

section 40A(2) of the Act, any unreasonable expenditure is disallowable. Identical issue has been covered by the Hon'ble High Court, Punjab & Haryana in the case of Subhash Chander Malik vs. DCIT [2015] 57 taxmann.com 180 (Punjab & Haryana) wherein the Hon'ble Court, upheld the disallowance made by the AO on account of excess rent paid. Further

BANSAL CLASSES PVIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

ITA 698/JPR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11
Section 40A(2)(b)

40A(2)(b) out of salary paid; (iv) deleting the addition of Rs. 4,90,07,505/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction claimed by assessee u/s 80G.” 3. In its first ground of appeal, the assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in not allowing the software expenses

SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

ITA 1030/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 40A(2)(a)

TDS @ 10%. Mr. Sanjay Gupta is regular income tax payer and he disclosed the same commission in his Income Tax Return and offered for taxation. The Assessing Officer has invoked the provision of section 40A(2

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 147/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Tatiwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3). Ground No. 4 That the assesse provided all relevant documents confirmations to prove genuineness creditworthiness and identity of creditor hence the addition made treating the same as purchase as bad in law and hence no further addition in respect of other disallowance can be made Had the learned Assessing Officer had not made addition u/s 68 which

SUPERSONIC TURNERS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/JPR/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2017AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Prithivi Raj Meena (Add. CIT)

TDS and cash payment was also made to the person who is assessed to income tax and the payment was within the permissible limits of Section 40A(3) of the Act. The expenses are reasonable and are resulting into receipts because these expenses are directly related to the manufacturing part. The lower authorities have not pointed out any specific payment

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 901/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a
Section 145(3)Section 40

2,39,196/-. With regard to the remaining disallowance of Rs. 90,000/- made on account of short deduction of tax, it is seen that the assessee has complied with the provisions of TDS and made deduction though at a lower rate. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Tekriwal reported in 90 DTR page

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 900/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a
Section 145(3)Section 40

2,39,196/-. With regard to the remaining disallowance of Rs. 90,000/- made on account of short deduction of tax, it is seen that the assessee has complied with the provisions of TDS and made deduction though at a lower rate. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Tekriwal reported in 90 DTR page

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 has been made u/s. 206C of the Act. However, assessee shown sale of scrap of Rs. 2,02,58,204/- only in its profit and loss account of ITR. As such there is an under disclosure of sales of scrap by Rs. 33,39,,666/- which should have been added to the total income. She further noted from

MORANI FOURWHEELS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 175/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 May 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar (Ad.)For Respondent: Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl.CIT)
Section 194CSection 40Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act. The AO further observed that the assessee is under contract with M/s Bikaner Detective Security Service and has deducted TDS u/s 194C on payment made to M/s Bikaner Detective Security Service. ITA No. 175/JP/16 M/s Morani Fourwheels Pvt. Ltd,Jaipur Vs. ACIT Circle-6,Jaipur Further, the AO observed that there

ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

ITA 931/JPR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT) fu/kZkfjrhdh vksj ls@
Section 133ASection 142Section 143(3)Section 69C

TDS and section 40A(3) of the Act on account of payment in cash beyond the prescribed threshold, the additions so made by the AO are hereby confirmed. 30. Regarding other expenses namely excessive/ bogus expenses amounting to Rs 2

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

TDS. The assessee is a Non-Banking Finance Company which is engaged in the business of providing small loans, vehicle loans, small and medium enterprises loans in rural and semi-urban areas, issuing debentures etc. It is noted from the assessment order that due to change of incumbent, notice u/s 142(1) along with the questionnaire was issued

SHRI GOVIND SWAROOP GARG,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER

In the result, ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 614/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri K C Meena (Add.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

40A(2)(b) of the Act. However when the matter was taken before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the advance of Rs. 51,000,00/- given by the company to Shri Govind Garg for purchase of land for showroom and service station and such advance are for the purpose of business

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 along with a penal interest under section 13 Shiv Kripa Hotels Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT 201(A) and under section 220(2) secondly, he is again penalized by the provisions of section 40a

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

40A, while the non-obstante clause of Section 115JB(1) is only and only in respect of subsection (1) of Section 115JB. Further, explanation 1 below Sec. 115JB(2) defines ‘book profit’. There is no non obstantive clause in the said provisions. It is very important to note that there is no non-obstantive clause to sub-section (2

M/S. GURU KRIPA CAREER INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,SIKAR vs. PR.CIT-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 68

TDS Amount Landlord rented Rent premises Jagpal Singh Jyoti Nagar Class room 12,00,000/- 1,20,000/- HUF Piprali Road coaching building Sikar ½ portion Smt. Mamkaur Jyoti Nagar Class room 12,00,000/- 1,20,000/- Piprali Road coaching building Sikar ½ portion Gurukripa Jyoti Nagar Office and Class 26,46,000/- 2,64,600/- Career Piprali Road room coaching

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

40a(ia)(ii) of the Act. Further the assessee debited rent expenses of Rs. 55,45,213/- whereas TDS has been deducted for an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- thus 30 % of 10,45,213/- amounting to Rs. 3,13,564/- was liable to disallowed. Further to that the assessee had made late deposit of ESI/PF to exchequer totaling

ACIT, KOTA vs. VASTUVEDIK COLONIZERS & DEVLOPERS PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, ground no. (ii) of the revenue is dismissed and ground no

ITA 320/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Was Disallowance

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 40

40a(ia) of the Act. But the revenue's contention is that the payments are in the nature of machinery hire charges falling under the head 'rent' and the previous provisions of section 194I of the Act are applicable. According to revenue, the assessee has deducted tax @ 1% 2 u/s. 194C(2) of the Act as against the actual deduction