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.

29 results for “TDS”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,023 Delhi2,821 Bangalore1,359 Chennai1,198 Kolkata971 Ahmedabad641 Hyderabad589 Pune374 Cochin368 Jaipur331 Indore277 Chandigarh263 Karnataka223 Raipur201 Visakhapatnam182 Cuttack181 Surat168 Rajkot121 Nagpur93 Lucknow81 Amritsar73 Jabalpur69 Ranchi57 Jodhpur50 Guwahati50 Dehradun45 Agra39 Allahabad31 Panaji29 Telangana29 Patna28 Calcutta13 Kerala11 Varanasi11 SC9 Uttarakhand2 Gauhati1 Rajasthan1 J&K1

Key Topics

Section 4051 Section 194C29 TDS26 Section 143(3)25 Section 271C25 Addition to Income24 Deduction23 Disallowance21 Section 201(1)19 Section 201

SHRI NITIN A SHIRGURKAR,BELGAVI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

ITA 77/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 194A(3)(iv)Section 263Section 40

TDS is liable to be disallowed @30% u/s 40(a)(ia) ignoring the @30% u/s 40(a)(ia) ignoring the provisions of section

MADALBAL GOA EXPORTS PVT. LTD,MIRAMAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

10

ITA 363/PAN/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sandip Bhandare, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 250(6)Section 40

TDS. So, the violation of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not for the assessee. 4. The learned

M/S DEMPO RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dempo Resorts Acit, Circle-2, Margao Private Limited Empressa Dempo, Mala Vs. Fontainhas, Panaji, Goa – 403 001. Pan: Aaccd 2126 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Naik, Accountant Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 2, Panaji In Ita No. 390/Cit(A)/Pnj-1/2014-15 Re-Numbered As Ita No. 342/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 23.01.2018 Against The Order Passed By Acit, Circle-1(1), Panaji U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 29.12.2014. 2. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In The Present Appeal Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Naik, AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) brought by Finance Act 2012 for the claim of expenditure made without TDS is prospective and applicable

M/S SHREE BALAJI CONCEPTS,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TXATION), WARD -1, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

ITA 73/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 73/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Hegde, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR

Section 156Section 191Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 205

TDS under Chapter XVII B and thus invocation of section 156 of the Act to levy a demand on the Appellant is totally misplaced and without any foundation. 6. The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 191 and section 205 construct a mandate not to recover tax from the deductor in the event of failure

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 159/PAN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable to the whole contract amount and not to the amount payable at the end of the year. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under: “6. We have considered

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 161/PAN/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable to the whole contract amount and not to the amount payable at the end of the year. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under: “6. We have considered

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 160/PAN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable to the whole contract amount and not to the amount payable at the end of the year. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under: “6. We have considered

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT., BAGALKOT

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 155/PAN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable to the whole contract amount and not to the amount payable at the end of the year. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under: “6. We have considered

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT., BAGALKOT

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 157/PAN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable to the whole contract amount and not to the amount payable at the end of the year. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under: “6. We have considered

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 158/PAN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable to the whole contract amount and not to the amount payable at the end of the year. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under: “6. We have considered

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 152/PAN/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable to the whole contract amount and not to the amount payable at the end of the year. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under: “6. We have considered

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 153/PAN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable to the whole contract amount and not to the amount payable at the end of the year. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under: “6. We have considered

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 154/PAN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable to the whole contract amount and not to the amount payable at the end of the year. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under: “6. We have considered

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 116/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

40(a) of the Act. The ld. Counsel also submitted that without prejudice to the ground 4(a), it is also contended that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have deleted the entire addition in view of the fact that the Explanation to section 9(1)(vii) inserted by 31 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 105/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

40(a) of the Act. The ld. Counsel also submitted that without prejudice to the ground 4(a), it is also contended that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have deleted the entire addition in view of the fact that the Explanation to section 9(1)(vii) inserted by 31 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2 (1), PANAJI., PANAJI vs. SHREE KALIKA URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED , MAPUSA

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

ITA 367/PAN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji15 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.367/Pan/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Panaji. बनाम / V/S. Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Block No.6, Om Chambers, Feira Baiya, Near Laxminarayan Temple, Mapusa Bardes, Goa. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aacas1697Q Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Assessee By : Shri R. K. Pikale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction In Respect Of Income Of Co-Operative Society U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I), 80P(2)(C)(Ii), 80P(2)(D) & 40(A)(Ia) On The Ground That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society, Accepts Deposits Only From Its Members & Can Lend Money Only To Its Members & It Cannot Issue Cheque Books, When The Assessee Accepts Deposits & Grants Loans To Its Members On Which It Makes Profit & Gain By Way Of Charging Interest, Thus Providing Credit Facility Is Akin To Banking Business As Per Section 2(24)(Viia) & Part-V Of The Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Deduction U/S. 80P.

For Appellant: Shri R. K. PikaleFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 2(24)(viia)Section 40Section 5Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act of Rs.1,89,65,048/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer denied the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(i)(a) of the Act on the ground that the respondent-assessee society is not a cooperative society but a cooperative bank placing reliance on the provisions of section

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

ITA 35/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: Mr Philip GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

40(a)(ia) of the Act. Nota bene, as regards to appellants claim that, the payments to harvesting contractors were made on behalf of the farmers was controverted by the Ld. ITO-TDS with following categorical findings as laid at Para 3 of page 3 of the assessment order; “The claim of the deductor that payment to the harvesting contractor

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

ITA 39/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: Mr Philip GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

40(a)(ia) of the Act. Nota bene, as regards to appellants claim that, the payments to harvesting contractors were made on behalf of the farmers was controverted by the Ld. ITO-TDS with following categorical findings as laid at Para 3 of page 3 of the assessment order; “The claim of the deductor that payment to the harvesting contractor

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

ITA 38/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: Mr Philip GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

40(a)(ia) of the Act. Nota bene, as regards to appellants claim that, the payments to harvesting contractors were made on behalf of the farmers was controverted by the Ld. ITO-TDS with following categorical findings as laid at Para 3 of page 3 of the assessment order; “The claim of the deductor that payment to the harvesting contractor

EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE, PANAJI, PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in term of aforesaid observation

ITA 37/PAN/2019[2013/14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Apr 2022

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 35 To 40/Pan/2019 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 To 2016-2017 M/S Eid Parry India Limited Khanpet, Trogal,Tal. : Ramdurg, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka Pan: Aaace 0702 C Tan:Blre 08509 E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ward-1, Belagavi, Dist. : Belagavi, Karnataka . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Philip George Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Present Appeals Filed By The Appellant Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Belagavi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Ascended Out Of Orders Of The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds Range, Panaji [For Short “Ao”] Passed U/S 271C Of The Act, For Six Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2011-2012 To 2016-2017. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: Mr Philip GeorgeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

40(a)(ia) of the Act. Nota bene, as regards to appellants claim that, the payments to harvesting contractors were made on behalf of the farmers was controverted by the Ld. ITO-TDS with following categorical findings as laid at Para 3 of page 3 of the assessment order; “The claim of the deductor that payment to the harvesting contractor