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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai291Delhi215Kolkata95Bangalore94Chennai71Ahmedabad34Hyderabad29Jaipur28Karnataka19Rajkot19Cuttack19Chandigarh14Pune9Cochin9Raipur6Patna6Surat5Lucknow4Telangana4Amritsar4Allahabad3Calcutta3Visakhapatnam3Jodhpur3Nagpur3Kerala2Indore2SC2Jabalpur1Ranchi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 26311Section 143(3)7Section 194H7Section 80P(2)(a)4Section 80P4Section 573Section 403Deduction3Disallowance3TDS

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), KANPUR vs. M/S. SPFL SECURITIES LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 35/LKW/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2011-12 Joint Cit (Osd) V. M/S Spfl Securities Ltd. Kanpur C/O S.A. Kapoor & Co. 13Th Floor, Himalaya House 23, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Tan/Pan:Aabcs2452C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Respondent By: Shri Sudhindra Jain, Fca Date Of Hearing: 07 03 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 03 2019

For Appellant: Shri C. K. singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhindra Jain, FCA
Section 194DSection 194HSection 40

disallowance under section 40(ia) of the Income Tax Act for violation of the provisions of section 194H / 194C and made

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

2
Addition to Income2

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 66/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neil Jain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 80Section 80I

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance vide paras 14.1 to 14.3 of his order, observing as under: “14.1 Ground of appeal No. 6 (Disallowance of Rs.675950/- u/s 40(a)(ia)) AO noted that appellant had paid a sum of Rs.6,75,950/- under the head commission but TDS was not deducted

FUTURE PHARMA PVT.LTD,KANPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, KANPUR

ITA 263/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Respondent by
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 194HSection 263Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The AO has not examined the issue of deduction of TDS u/s 194H and 194J of IT Act, 1961 of the Act on payment of Rs. 93,10,972/- (70,06,972/- plus 23,04,000/-) on commission and directors remuneration. From the above, it is clear that

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD VIKRAMJOT BASTI,VIKRAMJOT vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER BASTI -NEW, INCOME TAX OFFICE BASTI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 486/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas V. The Income Tax Officer Samiti Ltd. Basti Vikramjot, Basti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabas4611B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912. The Main Activity Of The Assessee Was Marketing Of Sugar Cane Grown By The Cane Growers, Who Were Members Of The Assessee-Society. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 21.03.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,73,170/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society Had Received Commission From Sugar Mills On Supply Of Sugar Cane Of Rs.70,16,032/-, Which Was Claimed As Exempt In Terms Of Section 80P(2)(A)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

section 194H as commission on receiving has been filed. 8. That the authority below erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction u/s 80P on interest received on investment in form of FDR'S. 9. The addition disallowances