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.

52 results for “TDS”+ Section 10(20)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,309Mumbai3,258Bangalore1,718Chennai1,135Kolkata796Pune710Hyderabad637Ahmedabad606Indore450Jaipur411Chandigarh335Raipur259Cochin254Karnataka237Surat197Visakhapatnam188Cuttack170Nagpur142Rajkot122Lucknow88Jabalpur88Amritsar72Jodhpur52Dehradun50Ranchi46Guwahati42Allahabad35Agra31Panaji30Telangana30Patna29SC17Varanasi13Kerala10Calcutta8Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan5Punjab & Haryana2Uttarakhand2Gauhati1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)110Section 234E65Section 143(3)57TDS33Section 200A32Section 194C31Section 206C28Addition to Income23Deduction22Section 154

KIRAN JAIN,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, TDS,, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 76/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Sept 2023AY 2015-16
Section 10(20)Section 194Section 194ISection 196Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS as per the provisions of section 1941A of the Act. The appellant contended that the Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara is having exemption u/s. 10(20

JYOTI MALIWAL,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Showing 1–20 of 52 · Page 1 of 3

21
Section 194I18
Survey u/s 133A6
ITA 75/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Sept 2023AY 2015-16
Section 10(20)Section 194Section 194ISection 196Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS as per the provisions of section 1941A of the Act. The appellant contended that the Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara is having exemption u/s. 10(20

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 112/JODH/2019[2017-18 (26 Q - 4)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 111/JODH/2019[2017-18 (26Q - 3)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 106/JODH/2019[2016-17 (26Q-1)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 109/JODH/2019[2017-18 (26 Q- 1)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 110/JODH/2019[2017-18 (26 Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 107/JODH/2019[2016-17 (26 Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH), UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 114/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the said demand by stating that the VFPMCs are not contractors under Section 194C, as they are formed under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and function as self-help groups for forest conservation and development. The payments made to VFPMCs are not contract payments but are reimbursements for work done under the joint forest management policy of the State Government.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 80P

20) or Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act, nor are they registered as trusts under Sections 11 and 12 or as cooperative societies under Section 80P. Therefore, the payments made to them are subject to TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 113/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 80P

20) or Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act, nor are they registered as trusts under Sections 11 and 12 or as cooperative societies under Section 80P. Therefore, the payments made to them are subject to TDS

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST FOREST BHILWARA,BHILWARA vs. CIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 98/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

20) or section 10 (46) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 nor any sub section of section 10 comes to their relief. Further, even they are not registered as Trust as per provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since these VFPMCs are not registered as Co-operative Society, provisions of section

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST FOREST BHILWARA,BHILWARA vs. CIT APPEAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 99/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

20) or section 10 (46) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 nor any sub section of section 10 comes to their relief. Further, even they are not registered as Trust as per provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since these VFPMCs are not registered as Co-operative Society, provisions of section

ABDUL HAKIM,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 173/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 194Section 194ISection 194LSection 201(1)

section 1941A is not applicable. We also notice that the assessees have relied upon the decision rendered by Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Oxcia Enterprises (P) Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Source (2019) 199 TTJ.UO(JD)(UO)25, wherein it was held as under:- " TDS-Under s. 194-IA-Joint ownership of property-In the instant

ABDUL AJEEJ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 174/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 194Section 194ISection 194LSection 201(1)

section 1941A is not applicable. We also notice that the assessees have relied upon the decision rendered by Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Oxcia Enterprises (P) Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Source (2019) 199 TTJ.UO(JD)(UO)25, wherein it was held as under:- " TDS-Under s. 194-IA-Joint ownership of property-In the instant

ABDUL KADIR,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 175/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 194Section 194ISection 194LSection 201(1)

section 1941A is not applicable. We also notice that the assessees have relied upon the decision rendered by Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Oxcia Enterprises (P) Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Source (2019) 199 TTJ.UO(JD)(UO)25, wherein it was held as under:- " TDS-Under s. 194-IA-Joint ownership of property-In the instant

ABDUL RASHID,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 172/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 194Section 194ISection 194LSection 201(1)

section 1941A is not applicable. We also notice that the assessees have relied upon the decision rendered by Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Oxcia Enterprises (P) Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Source (2019) 199 TTJ.UO(JD)(UO)25, wherein it was held as under:- " TDS-Under s. 194-IA-Joint ownership of property-In the instant

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

Section 143(3)Section 263

TDS is same i.e. 10% under both the 11 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT Sections. Thus there is no escapement of income from the clutches of revenue. It is therefore sincerely requested that the impugned order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may kindly be quashed and oblige.” 5. On the other hand

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 123/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 205CSection 206CSection 234E

20. Even in absence of section 200A of the Act with introduction of section 234E was always open for the Revenue to demand and collect the fee for late filing of the statements. Section 200A would merely regulate the manner in which the computation of such fee would be made and demand raised. In other words, we cannot subscribe

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,BANSWARA vs. ITO, TDS,, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 116/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

20% payment upto date of 2016-17 Order 1422991 94 284598 267522 Jun-10 8600 7998 July-10 43000 93

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORET,BANSWARA vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/JODH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

20% payment upto date of 2016-17 Order 1422991 94 284598 267522 Jun-10 8600 7998 July-10 43000 93