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.

8 results for “TDS”+ Section 206C(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore240 Pune235 Delhi182 Chennai154 Mumbai62 Kolkata46 Raipur44 Cochin28 Ahmedabad26 Karnataka26 Jabalpur23 Jaipur21 Jodhpur20 Nagpur20 Rajkot18 Indore14 Surat12 Panaji10 Dehradun8 Lucknow8 Hyderabad6 Himachal Pradesh6 Chandigarh6 Amritsar5 Cuttack5 Guwahati4 Visakhapatnam3 Telangana2 Varanasi2 SC1 Rajasthan1 Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 206C64 TDS8 Natural Justice7 Limitation/Time-bar6 Section 206C(1)2

M/S SINGHAL CONCAST PVT. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 10/LKW/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 206C(6)

section 206C of the Act. 6. We further find that the Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT in the case of ‘ITO(TDS

THE DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

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

ITA 246/LKW/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed

ITAT Lucknow

30 Jun 2025

AY 2008-09

Section 206CSection 250

6) / 206C(7) of the Act. Following the said order, the ITAT Lucknow Bench in the\ncase of the assessee had ruled similarly.\n9.\nHowever, from a perusal of the Hon'ble High Court orders cited by the Jaipur\nBench of the Tribunal, it appears that none of them were with regard to the provisions of\nSection 206C(1C)/206C

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/LKW/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R

TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section (6A) of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act and have misapplied the provisions of the Act. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 303/LKW/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R

TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section (6A) of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act and have misapplied the provisions of the Act. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R

TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section (6A) of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act and have misapplied the provisions of the Act. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 305/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R

TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section (6A) of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act and have misapplied the provisions of the Act. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R

TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section (6A) of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act and have misapplied the provisions of the Act. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 307/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R

TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and bad in law since the authorities have not considered the proviso contained under sub section (6A) of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act and have misapplied the provisions of the Act. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case