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.

418 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194C(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai556Kolkata418Delhi404Chennai205Bangalore193Ahmedabad60Hyderabad45Indore36Jaipur35Raipur33Rajkot31Pune16Karnataka15Nagpur15Amritsar14Visakhapatnam13Cochin13Cuttack13Surat13Panaji12Chandigarh11Ranchi10Lucknow10Guwahati9Allahabad9Kerala7Patna7Calcutta5Dehradun5Jodhpur3SC3Agra3Varanasi1Jabalpur1Telangana1Uttarakhand1Rajasthan1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 40219Section 194C144Section 143(3)84Disallowance69Deduction62TDS59Addition to Income56Section 26336Section 80I33Section 194I

SOMA RANI GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1420/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

section 194C( 6) of the Act and the entire disallowance and addition is uncalled for and liable to be deleted. I.T.A. No. 1420/KOL./2015 Assessment year: 2012-2013 Page 3

ACIT, CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ASHOKE PRASAD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 582/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 418 · Page 1 of 21

...
20
Section 153A20
Section 40a18
ITAT Kolkata
26 Oct 2018
AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 582/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata -Vs- Ashoke Prasad. [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 611/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ashoke Prasad -Vs- Dcit, Circle-49, Kolkata [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 201(1)Section 40

194C(7) and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise as held by the 9 A.Yr. 2012-13 Coordinate Bench supra, accordingly, the impugned addition made thereon shall go and thus, ground no's 2 and 3

SHREE ASHOKE PRASAD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 611/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 582/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-49(1), Kolkata -Vs- Ashoke Prasad. [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 611/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ashoke Prasad -Vs- Dcit, Circle-49, Kolkata [Pan: Afqpp 6505 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 201(1)Section 40

194C(7) and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise as held by the 9 A.Yr. 2012-13 Coordinate Bench supra, accordingly, the impugned addition made thereon shall go and thus, ground no's 2 and 3

M/S EXCEL ENGINEERS,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) CIR - 51,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

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

ITA 1588/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subhas Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debnath Lahiri, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

section 194C of the Act warranting disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld AO is directed to delete this disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the sum of Rs. 68,49,395/-. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 3

DEBJYOTI MISHRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1411/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghyas Uddin, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234ASection 40

disallowance as made for violation of section 194C and the addition therein by invoking Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not maintainable and, therefore, the impugned amount to an extent of Rs.1,13,700/- on account of Instrument Hire Charges is deleted and ground no-4 is allowed. 14. Ground no-5 relates to the payments to Artists

MR KRISHAN KUMAR SOMANI,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WD-47(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 751/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 194(1)Section 194CSection 194C(1)Section 263Section 40

194C of the Act. 3. Briefly, the facts are that the assessee is an individual, carrying on his business under name & style of ‘Engineers Enterprises’. The assessee has claimed labour charges for an amount of Rs.7.29 lakh on which no TDS was deducted by assessee. Accordingly, AO disallowed the aforesaid sum for non- deduction of TDS and added

ITO, WARD-2(2), BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. NUR EGG CENTRE, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1873/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1873/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(2), Burdwan….......................................................…..…......Appellant M/S. Nur Egg Centre……………………………………………......……………………………………Respondent 142, Spandan Complex G.T. Road Burdwan - 713101 [Pan : Aacfn 4999 F]

Section 194CSection 194C(3)Section 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 250Section 40

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) fo the Act. 4. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Valibhai Khanbhai Mankad [2013] 261 CTR 538 (Gujarat) held as follows:- “3. We have heard the learned counsel for the Revenue as well as for the assessee. Section 194C

ITO, WD-40(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DAYAL ROADLINES, HOWRAH

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1376/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194C(1)Section 40

disallowed the amount of Rs . 2,81,00,233/- for non deduction of TDS u/s40(a)(ia), read with section 194C. The Explanation III to section 194C was applicable to the assessment year-in-question. However, it would not apply to the facts of the instant case. This was so because the provisions of section 194C are applicable to payments

SRI GOPINATH GHORAI,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 01/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: G.Banerjee, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194Section 194CSection 40

section 194C had no application and the order of AO passed u/s 143(3)/147 in not considering this aspect was wrong. The AO did not find any merit in the application filed by the assessee u/s 154 for rectification. According to him, the issue relating to disallowance

INDER CHAND AGARWAL(HUF),HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 45(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1481/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, ld.DR
Section 194CSection 194C(3)Section 40

3 of Section 194C 8. explains that deduction is allowed if the sub contractor is an individual who has not owned more than two goods carriages and files a declaration to the person concerned paying or crediting such sum in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner. In the present case, it is observed from the order

DCIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHRADHA AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1362/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1362/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCITFor Respondent: Ankita Manek, ACA
Section 144Section 14ASection 194C(7)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(2)Section 40

3 raised by the revenue relates to addition of Rs. 6,37,75,651/ to addition of Rs. 6,37,75,651/- u/s 194C(7) read with section 40a(ia) of the Act. 194C(7) read with section 40a(ia) of the Act. 16. Brief facts qua the issue are that in course of assessment proceedings, the 16. Brief facts

RAKSHIT CHEMICALS,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 47(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 632/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

Section 194C(6) has not been fulfilled. He, therefore, proceeded to disallow the claim u/s. 40(a)(ia). ITA No.632/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 Rakshit Chemicals Vs. ITO Wd-47(2), Kol. Page 3

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

194C whereas as a matter of fact, 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

TAPAN KUMAR DUTTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 472/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 40

194C(7) and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise as held by the Coordinate Bench supra, accordingly, the impugned addition made thereon shall go and thus, ground no's 2 and 3

I.T.O WD - 7(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S WINSOME BREWERIES LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 622/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Shital C. Das, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2009-10 vide its order dated 30.12.2011. 2. The first issue in this appeal of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by AO on account of disallowance of job work charges without deduction of TDS u/s. 194C

DIPAK KUMAR DASBHOWMIK,PASCHIM MIDNAPORE vs. I.T.O., WARD - 38(1), MIDNAPORE , PASCHIM MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2384/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

section 194C of the Act for which the disallowance has been rightly made by the AO which is confirmed. Accordingly, this Ground No. 3

KALI KINKAR ROY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, W 2(4), BWN, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 194C(6)

194C(7) and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise as held by the Coordinate Bench supra, accordingly, the impugned addition made thereon shall go and thus, ground no’s 2 and 3

M/S GHOSH & CHAKRABORTY TRANSPORT,BURDWAN vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

ITA 423/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 194CSection 40

disallowance of Rs.29,38,990/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) for the failure of the assessee to deduct tax at source as required by the provisions of section 194C. 3

ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CALCUTTA AHMEDABAD CARRIERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 1561/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 194CSection 194C(1)Section 194C(3)Section 40

section 194C, I shall revert to the written submissions made before me and am of the considered view that the ITO erred in holding that TDS was required to be deducted by the appellant u/s. 194C. I, therefore, hold that the ITO was not correct in disallowing the expenditure of Rs.2,27,02,728 u/s. 40(a)(ia) in this

ACIT, CIR-2, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. SRI ATINDRA NATH CHOUBEY, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 221/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Dr. A.L.Saini, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Co. No.48/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of Appeal No. Ita 221/K/2014 (Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit, Circle-2, Asansol Vs. Shri Atindra Nath Chaubey, Prop.A.N.Choubey & Co. G.T.Road East, Muragasol, Po : Asansol, Dist:Burdwan(W.B.)-713303 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppc 6542 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Khemka & Shri P.C.Nayak, Advocates सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal & Cross Objection Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Respectively, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-2011, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol In Appeal No.230/Cit(A)/Asl./Cir-2/Asl/12-13, Dated 27.11.2013, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 16.01.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2010-11 Electronically On 30.11.2010 Declaring Total Income At Rs.21,22,657/-. The Case Was Processed By The Department U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Addition U/S.40(A)(Ia). 3. Aggrieved From The Order Of Ao, The Assessee Filed Appeal Before

For Appellant: Shri K.K.KhemkaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

disallowed the same. 11. There are two aspects. After substitution of section 194C w.e.f. 01.04.2009, new form as required under section 194C(7) has not been prescribed yet. Secondly going by import of decision in I.T.O., Ward-2(3