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.

29 results for “TDS”+ Section 94(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,049 Delhi1,030 Bangalore452 Chennai429 Hyderabad254 Kolkata243 Ahmedabad224 Indore197 Karnataka127 Jaipur120 Chandigarh113 Raipur104 Cochin90 Pune88 Visakhapatnam60 Surat55 Jabalpur53 Cuttack47 Rajkot45 Lucknow32 Jodhpur29 Nagpur22 Kerala17 Dehradun17 Allahabad13 Agra11 Patna11 Guwahati10 Telangana10 Ranchi7 Amritsar5 SC4 Panaji3 Calcutta3 Punjab & Haryana1 Varanasi1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)89 Section 143(3)47 Section 15420 Section 194A18 Addition to Income18 Section 133A16 Section 194C14 Deduction12 TDS12 Section 153A

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

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

ITA 75/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

94 284598 267522 Jun-10 8600 7998 July-10 43000 93 175935 92 35187 32372 Aug-10 Sep-10 144525

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (NORTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

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

ITA 85/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

9

Survey u/s 133A8

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

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

94 284598 267522 Jun-10 8600 7998 July-10 43000 93 175935 92 35187 32372 Aug-10 Sep-10 144525

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (NORTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

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

ITA 86/JODH/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

94 284598 267522 Jun-10 8600 7998 July-10 43000 93 175935 92 35187 32372 Aug-10 Sep-10 144525

THE DEUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

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

ITA 84/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

94 284598 267522 Jun-10 8600 7998 July-10 43000 93 175935 92 35187 32372 Aug-10 Sep-10 144525

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

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

ITA 76/JODH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

94 284598 267522 Jun-10 8600 7998 July-10 43000 93 175935 92 35187 32372 Aug-10 Sep-10 144525

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,DUNGARPUR vs. ITO (TDS),, UDAIPUR

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

ITA 103/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

94 284598 267522 Jun-10 8600 7998 July-10 43000 93 175935 92 35187 32372 Aug-10 Sep-10 144525

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)

94 284598 267522 Jun-10 8600 7998 July-10 43000 93 175935 92 35187 32372 Aug-10 Sep-10 144525

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)

94 284598 267522 Jun-10 8600 7998 July-10 43000 93 175935 92 35187 32372 Aug-10 Sep-10 144525

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

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)

7. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, the assessee had paid interest of Rs.6,13,104/- to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. in the year under consideration. Alleging non-deduction of tax at source under section 194A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has raised demand under section

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)

7. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, the assessee had paid interest of Rs.6,13,104/- to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. in the year under consideration. Alleging non-deduction of tax at source under section 194A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has raised demand under section

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)

7. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, the assessee had paid interest of Rs.6,13,104/- to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. in the year under consideration. Alleging non-deduction of tax at source under section 194A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has raised demand under section

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

ITA 65/JODH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

7. That the appellant may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternate grounds at or before the time of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a L/H of Partner of M/s. Keshariyaji Filling Station, a dealer of Bharat Petroleum. The assessee firm filed its last

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

ITA 67/JODH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

7. That the appellant may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternate grounds at or before the time of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a L/H of Partner of M/s. Keshariyaji Filling Station, a dealer of Bharat Petroleum. The assessee firm filed its last

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

ITA 63/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

7. That the appellant may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternate grounds at or before the time of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a L/H of Partner of M/s. Keshariyaji Filling Station, a dealer of Bharat Petroleum. The assessee firm filed its last

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

ITA 66/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

7. That the appellant may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternate grounds at or before the time of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a L/H of Partner of M/s. Keshariyaji Filling Station, a dealer of Bharat Petroleum. The assessee firm filed its last

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

ITA 64/JODH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

7. That the appellant may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternate grounds at or before the time of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a L/H of Partner of M/s. Keshariyaji Filling Station, a dealer of Bharat Petroleum. The assessee firm filed its last

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 30/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V. (JCIT-Sr.DR)

94,269+47,56,615+68,12,269+13,06,74,650) made on account of difference in contract receipt shown in Form 26AS vis-à-vis receipts accounted by the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 15,00,000/- against disallowance

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 143/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153A

94,812/- whereas in the audited accounts, the gross receipts are shown as Rs. 8,71,39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts for the AY 2012-13 by Rs. 1,67,54,824/- and has therefore, made the aforesaid addition to the total income of the appellant. (vi) It is observed that

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 140/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153A

94,812/- whereas in the audited accounts, the gross receipts are shown as Rs. 8,71,39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts for the AY 2012-13 by Rs. 1,67,54,824/- and has therefore, made the aforesaid addition to the total income of the appellant. (vi) It is observed that

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 144/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153A

94,812/- whereas in the audited accounts, the gross receipts are shown as Rs. 8,71,39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts for the AY 2012-13 by Rs. 1,67,54,824/- and has therefore, made the aforesaid addition to the total income of the appellant. (vi) It is observed that