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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Section 194A(3)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai256Delhi115Bangalore102Chandigarh100Chennai67Kolkata41Hyderabad39Karnataka31Ahmedabad31Jaipur29Cochin28Pune25Cuttack20Visakhapatnam19Raipur17Nagpur17Amritsar9Rajkot7SC7Dehradun7Telangana6Surat6Jodhpur5Jabalpur5Panaji5Kerala4Indore4Allahabad3Ranchi3J&K2Guwahati2Patna1Lucknow1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 194A18Section 201(1)9Section 2016Section 194C6Section 194A(3)6Section 194A(3)(iii)5Deduction4TDS4Section 403Section 133A

RAJTECH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,PRATAPGARH. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

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

ITA 363/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 40

TDS on such payment. Undisputedly, as per Section 194A(3)(iii)(a), TDS is not required to be made from

MAHARAJA GANGA MAHAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, TD,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 83/JODH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Sept 2023AY 2016-17
3
Survey u/s 133A3
Disallowance2

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Shafi Mohd. Chouhan, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194A(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

III(a) to section 194A(3) of the Act, any income credited or paid to any banking company, to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies, has been excluded from applicability of section 194A of the Act. The approval granted by the RBI to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. makes it clear that it has been covered under the Banking Regulation

MAHARAJA GANGA MAHAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, TD,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 85/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Shafi Mohd. Chouhan, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194A(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

III(a) to section 194A(3) of the Act, any income credited or paid to any banking company, to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies, has been excluded from applicability of section 194A of the Act. The approval granted by the RBI to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. makes it clear that it has been covered under the Banking Regulation

MAHARAJA GANGA MAHAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, TD,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 84/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Shafi Mohd. Chouhan, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194A(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

III(a) to section 194A(3) of the Act, any income credited or paid to any banking company, to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies, has been excluded from applicability of section 194A of the Act. The approval granted by the RBI to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. makes it clear that it has been covered under the Banking Regulation

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. SMT. ALPANA GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 45/JODH/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Alpana Gupta, 4-A-15, Central Circle, Jawahar Nagar, Bikaner. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aiepg 8893 R

Section 40

iii). Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT Vs. Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.) (HC) has held that since the advances were far below the available capital of the assessee and the AO 6 ITA 45/Jodh/2019 ACIT Vs Smt. Alpana Gupta. was not able to pin pointedly come to a definite conclusion which