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.

36 results for “TDS”+ Section 194A(3)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai270Bangalore138Delhi135Chandigarh99Chennai77Pune63Karnataka56Hyderabad46Cochin45Jaipur39Ahmedabad37Kolkata36Visakhapatnam33Cuttack26Nagpur25Raipur17Rajkot13Telangana8Dehradun7Panaji6Jodhpur6Jabalpur5SC5Kerala4Lucknow4Amritsar4Allahabad4Ranchi3Indore3Surat3Varanasi2Agra1Patna1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 4054Section 143(3)36Section 26331Addition to Income28Section 194A24TDS24Disallowance20Deduction18Section 20113Section 14A

DARJEELING DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD. ,DARJEELING vs. ACIT, CIR-3(1),SILIGURI. , SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 767/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri N. C. Mondal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

TDS), Ward-5(3), Darjeeling on 16-03-2018 u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 demanding Rs.26,24,748/- for non deduction of tax at source under section 194A and Rs.77,12,381/- for interest u/s.201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 though no tax was deductible in terms of exemption provided uls.194A(3)(v

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

11
Section 15410
Section 2509

DARJEELING DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.OP. BANK LTD. ,DARJEELING vs. ACIT(OSD)(TDS)WD-5(3), DARJEELING, , DARJEELING.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 768/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri N. C. Mondal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

TDS), Ward-5(3), Darjeeling on 16-03-2018 u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 demanding Rs.26,24,748/- for non deduction of tax at source under section 194A and Rs.77,12,381/- for interest u/s.201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 though no tax was deductible in terms of exemption provided uls.194A(3)(v

DARJEELING DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,DARJEELING vs. ACIT(OSD)(TDS),WD-5(3),DARJEELING, DARJEELING.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 766/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri N. C. Mondal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

TDS), Ward-5(3), Darjeeling on 16-03-2018 u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 demanding Rs.26,24,748/- for non deduction of tax at source under section 194A and Rs.77,12,381/- for interest u/s.201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 though no tax was deductible in terms of exemption provided uls.194A(3)(v

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 312/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 194C

TDS should have been deducted at the rate of 10% u/s 194A of the Act. Finally, the AO disallowed 30% of the above interest payment being disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. In our opinion the provisions of Section 40a(ia) cannot be invoked where there is a short deduction of tax at source but in a case, where

ITO, WD-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BATRAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 983/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.983/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(1) -Vs.- M/S. Batram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccb 0291 R] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl.Cit For The Respondent : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 194(1)Section 194ASection 194A(3)Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 254Section 40

194A(3)(iii)(e) of the Act is only to cover cases where there is default in payment of insurance premium and consequently interest is levied by the insurer from the insured on such delayed payment. Only in such case no TDS need to be made on interest paid. It is his further submission that the CIT(A) erred

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S. SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1627/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Debasish Roy, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Sarana, FCA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

v Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). 7. We find from the above facts that both the creditors have confirmed the transaction and also filed details of their assessment particulars and these credits are given out of their bank account but the AO did not carry out any exercise whatsoever to verify these unsecured loans as is clearly evidenced

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHAMPION COMMERCIAL CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1421/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Dcit, Circle-10(1), V/S. M/S Champion P-7, Chowringhee Commercial Co. Ltd., Square, 3Rd Floor, P-15, Cit Road, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-73 [Pan No.Aabcc 2373 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 04.04.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 10.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “I. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,50,938/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37(1) Overrule The Judicial Pronouncement Of Cit Vs. Calcutta Agency Limited (1951) (191) Itr (Sc) Ii. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.13,91,404/- On A Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The Provisions Of Section 37 Of The It Act, 1961. Iii. That On The Facts Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.20,25,329/- On Wrong Appreciation Of Facts Ignoring The

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 44A

194A. vi. That on the facts of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,28,655/- on a wrong appreciation of facts ignoring the provisions laid down in section 194J in the It Act, 1961. vii. That the appellant craves to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal before

ITO, WD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 593/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Ito(E), Wd-1(3), Kolkata Vs. The Institute Of Indian Foundrymen 6Th Floor, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata Iif Center, 335, Rajdanga Main – 700 071. Road, East Kolkata Township, P.O. Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt 6606 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Smt. Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)

194A [Interest other than ‘interest on securities’] and, u/s 194C [payments to contractors]. We note that the difference arises because of timing of the transactions, which is the common issue in TDS matters. The relevant comparative facts and figures are given below: As per form 26AS As per assessee Difference Income 3

I.T.O WD - 6(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S AXIX OVERSEAS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 532/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 194A

194A of the Act as per the Notification No.S0861(E) dated 01.06.2007. Therefore, assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the payment of interest to M/s PEC Ltd. ii) Bills form PEC Ltd. for ₹24,48,531/- was received by the assessee during the year under consideration. Therefore, the interest expense for ₹24,48,531/- was recorded during

AXIX OVERSEAS LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 376/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 194A

194A of the Act as per the Notification No.S0861(E) dated 01.06.2007. Therefore, assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the payment of interest to M/s PEC Ltd. ii) Bills form PEC Ltd. for ₹24,48,531/- was received by the assessee during the year under consideration. Therefore, the interest expense for ₹24,48,531/- was recorded during

ACIT, CIRCLE - 25, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SMT. CHAMPA NANDI, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2517/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Acit, Circle-25, Kolkata Vs. Smt. Champa Nandi 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Flat No.Ud-0606, Udita Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata – 700 068. Complex, 1050/1, Survey Park, E.M. Byepass, Kolkata – 700 075. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abqpn 6470 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri K. Mondal, Addl. CIT (Sr. DR)For Respondent: Shri I. Banerjee, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40

3 SREI Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. 86-C, Tapsia Road (south) 1,08,93,955 Kolkata :- 700 046. 4 SRIRAM Equipment Finance Co. Ltd. Mira Tower, DN-27, 23,85,527 Sector- V, Salt LakeCity, Kolkata:- 700 091 Total 4,41,12,662 During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain as to why such expenses (as described

SUBIR ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 683/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: The Ao That Post Dated Cheques For Short As Pdcs Were Issued Against Such Loan To The Said Finance Company & Therefore, The Assessee Was Not In A Position To Deduct Tax At Source On Interest Payments. This Explanation Of The Assessee Was Not Acceptable To Ao & As Such Added Said Amount 1 Of Rs.6,74,976/- To The Total Income Of Assessee For Violation Of Section 194A Of The Act By Invoking The Provisions U/Sec 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Smt. Swati Baid, CA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri U.Dasgupta, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 40

194A(1) of the Act and confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 7. Before us the ld.AR submits that the interest on motor vehicle was paid to M/s. Sundaram Finance and EMI’s were deducted from bank through PDCs that were issued. There is no chance to assessee to deduct any TDS from such payment. The ld.AR

M/S STANDARD FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.7(2), KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 178/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 194ASection 2Section 40

3 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 178/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Standard Financial Consultants Private Limited. returns and the deduction is allowable in terms of judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Virgin Creations in G.A. No. 3200 of 2011 & ITAT No. 302 of 2011 wherein it was held as under:- “Moreover, the Supreme

HARBHAJAN SINGH,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O WD - 1(4),KOLKATA, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1076/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 269S

3 6. Before us Ld. AR filed paper book which is running pages 1 to 87 and submitted that loan from Cyrillic Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. of ₹ 4 lacs was taken through banking channel. The observation of AO that loan was taken in cash is wrong. Ld. AR in support of his claim has produced copy of bank statement which

M/S DHAMEJA MINING,SIKKIM vs. ITO, WD-2(4), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

ITA 701/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 194Section 40Section 69A

v. ACIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 244(Visakhapatnam) (SB) in the case is not accepted by me. Hence ground 2 is dismissed. ITA No. 701/Kol/15 M/s. Dhameja Mining . 3 9. Before us the ld.AR submits that the assessee gathered information regarding the payee disclosing such payment as income in return of income and the same was brought to the notice

SRI HARTAJ SEWA SINGH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT), CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1011/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

TDS, if required from M/s. STAR Consortium Pte Limited as the CEO is in India too frequently and having 50% shares in the Company etc. In view of facts and legal position stated above, it is hereby held that the assessment order u/s 143(3) of Income tax Act, 1961 on 17.03.2015 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International

M/S INDUSTRIAL PERFORATION INDIA (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WD - 5(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 413/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M Das, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 194JSection 200Section 234BSection 40

v. Tax Recovery Officer, Kolkata-36 in IT Appeal No. 1233 (KOL.) of 2010 dated 12th October 2012 for Assessment year 2006-07 reported in (2012) 139 ITD 475(kol); [2012] 27 taxmnann.corn 293 (Kol.) held that one of the fundamental requirements for allowing deduction in respect of commission payment is that there should be evidence for some services

ARABINDA ROY,HOOGHLY vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - XX, HOOGHLY

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1367/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

TDS on the payment of interest of Rs.15,000 each paid/ payable to the four loan creditors. The assessee also submitted that the provisions of Section 194A is not applicable to it. It was submitted that the receipt of ₹3.5 lakh from three parties is (ii) reflecting the sale of potato. Assessee was not under any obligation to check

I.T.O WD - 8(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUIA SONS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 365/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 301Section 40

194A, 194C, 194 H, 194- I, and 194 J either at the time of payment or at the time of giving credit to the recipient, section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable. In view of the decision of the Special Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT, Vishakhapatnam (supra) relied upon by the appellant and also in view of the ratio

GANAPATI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 485/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 485/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Ganapati Technology Services Pvt. Ltd.,…Appellant 6B, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sarani, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aadcg2354D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-6(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kadel, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 271(1)(c)

194A was deducted by these parties which proves that they have not provided for any interest payment in their books of accounts. The Learned 2 Ganapati Technology Services Private Limited Assessing Officer issued show cause notice on 23/11/2018 which stated to substantiate the source of investment made in Reliance Yield Maximiser and documentary evidence in order to substantiate non charging