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.

98 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai305Delhi219Kolkata98Bangalore94Chennai75Jaipur19Karnataka19Rajkot16Chandigarh10Ahmedabad9Hyderabad7Pune7Raipur5Surat4Indore4Telangana4Lucknow4Amritsar4Patna4Calcutta3Jodhpur3Allahabad3Nagpur2Cochin2Kerala2SC2Guwahati1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 40178Section 194H102TDS63Addition to Income63Deduction62Disallowance61Section 143(3)58Section 201(1)29Section 14A27Section 250

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2010-2011

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

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 40

disallowance thus is restricted to income of the payee of the nature of commission on the sale of lottery tickets. As provided in Clause (i) of Explanation to Section 40(a)(ia), the term “commission or brokerage” shall have the same meaning as in Clause (i) of Explanation to Section 194H

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (TDS) CIR-59 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 98 · Page 1 of 5

25
Section 194C21
Section 143(2)17

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1500/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 191Section 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

Section 194H and the income tax or the TDS is required to be deducted is not correct and accordingly disallowance

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE EAST LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1538/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 191Section 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

Section 194H and the income tax or the TDS is required to be deducted is not correct and accordingly disallowance

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1540/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 191Section 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

Section 194H and the income tax or the TDS is required to be deducted is not correct and accordingly disallowance

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE EAST LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1537/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 191Section 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

Section 194H and the income tax or the TDS is required to be deducted is not correct and accordingly disallowance

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE SOUTH LTD.), KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 233/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 191Section 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

Section 194H and the income tax or the TDS is required to be deducted is not correct and accordingly disallowance

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (TDS) CIR-59 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1499/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 191Section 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

Section 194H and the income tax or the TDS is required to be deducted is not correct and accordingly disallowance

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, TDS, CIR-59 (TDS) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 136/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 191Section 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

Section 194H and the income tax or the TDS is required to be deducted is not correct and accordingly disallowance

VODAFONE SOUTH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (TDS) CIR-59 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1502/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 191Section 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

Section 194H and the income tax or the TDS is required to be deducted is not correct and accordingly disallowance

ACIT, CIR-3(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1539/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 191Section 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

Section 194H and the income tax or the TDS is required to be deducted is not correct and accordingly disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE EAST LTD.), KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 232/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 191Section 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

Section 194H and the income tax or the TDS is required to be deducted is not correct and accordingly disallowance

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, TDS, CIR-59 (TDS) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 137/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 191Section 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

Section 194H and the income tax or the TDS is required to be deducted is not correct and accordingly disallowance

VODAFONE SOUTH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (TDS) CIR-59 (TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are partly allowed and that of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1501/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 191Section 194HSection 201(1)Section 250

Section 194H and the income tax or the TDS is required to be deducted is not correct and accordingly disallowance

M/S. B.S. ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 97/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

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

Section 194HSection 40

disallowance of Rs.8,95,000/- under section 40(a)(ia) on account of commission for the failure of the assessee to deduct tax at source as required under section 194H

HEMRAJ AGARWAL,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, MEDINIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1825/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 1825/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Hemraj Agarwal…............................…………...……………....……..…………..………………....……Appellant 187, Chandni Chowk Golebazar, Kharagpur Paschim Medinipur West Bengal – 721 301 [Pan: Afqpa 4712 G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Midnapur…..............….....….…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 24Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 26Th, 2020 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 28/06/2019, For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In The Business Of Wholesale Of Pulses, M. Seeds Etc. The Assessing Officer While Passing An Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 16/12/2011, Disallowed An Amount U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act, On The Ground That The Assessee Violated The Provisions Of Section 194C Of The Act, With Respect To Payment To Transporters. The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority, Accepted The Contention Of The Assessee That There Is No Contractual Relationship Between The Assessee & Truck Drivers/Transporters & Hence The Provisions Of Section 194C Of The Act, Will Not Apply. While Holding So, The Ld. Cit(A) Came To The Conclusion That Section 194H Of The Act, Applies As The Trucks Were Obtained On Payment Of Commission. As No Tds U/S 194H Of The Act, Was Made On These Commission Payments, He Confirmed The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. 3. Aggrieved The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Me.

Section 143(3)Section 19Section 194CSection 194HSection 250Section 40

Section 194H of the Act, does not apply. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Hence Section 194H of the Act, does

ABHIJIT MAJUMDER,NADIA vs. ITO, WD-4, NADIA, NADIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 447/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 194HSection 40

section 194H of the Act and since there was failure on the part of the assessee to do so, he required the assesese to explain as to why the amount of Rs.14,47,045/- should not be disallowed

LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 80I

section 194H of the Act and since there was failure on the part of the assessee-company to do so, he disallowed

M/S RAIGANJ COMMUNICATION,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. ITO,WARD-1, RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 847/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2016AY 2008-2009

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

Section 143(3)Section 194H

section 194H – Held, yes – Whether, therefore, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was unjustified – Held, yes [para 4] Section 40(a)(ia), read

TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 303/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

disallowance.” Being aggrieved by this order of CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us. 6. The ld. DR before us submitted that the amendment in the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act came on a later date and therefore the benefit of the amended provision is not available to the assessee. The ld. DR relied

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA RYERSON LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1124/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

disallowance.” Being aggrieved by this order of CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us. 6. The ld. DR before us submitted that the amendment in the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act came on a later date and therefore the benefit of the amended provision is not available to the assessee. The ld. DR relied