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.

555 results for “TDS”+ Section 5clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,626Mumbai5,337Bangalore2,713Chennai2,337Kolkata1,428Pune1,153Ahmedabad751Hyderabad688Patna555Jaipur474Raipur385Karnataka375Chandigarh326Cochin302Nagpur282Indore263Visakhapatnam195Lucknow175Surat163Rajkot158Jodhpur109Cuttack98Dehradun83Amritsar71Telangana70Ranchi68Agra59Panaji58Guwahati53Jabalpur42SC26Calcutta21Allahabad18Kerala17Varanasi9Rajasthan9Himachal Pradesh8Punjab & Haryana7J&K5Orissa4Uttarakhand3Gauhati1Bombay1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

TDS97Section 20112Section 1548Section 2638Section 106Section 143(3)5Addition to Income5Section 153C4Section 1534Section 194H

GUPTA JI BROTHERS RICE PRIVATE LIMITED,DALMIA NAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, GAYA

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

ITA 33/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 194CSection 194HSection 250Section 37(1)Section 40

TDS on commission and brokerage. 5. The appellant craves leave the add, amend, rectify, modify or otherwise alter any ground of appeal.” 2. Before us, the Ld. Authorised Representative filed a paper book and vehemently argued that the expenses disallowed were wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of business and the reasons given for the said disallowance, as mentioned

BIJAY KUMAR SARAF,DALDALI BAZAR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 1,MUZFFARPUR, IT-OFFICE, POLICE LINE, SIKANDERPUR MUZZAFFARPUR

Showing 1–20 of 555 · Page 1 of 28

...
4
Disallowance4
Exemption4

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

ITA 205/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194(7)Section 194C(6)Section 250

5 of the paper book in which the details of the PANs of the transporters were filed for the amount paid at ₹ 54,59,700/-. It was stated that the amendment in the Act had taken place from 01/06/2015 for liability to deduct TDS under section

PUNAM HISARIA,SITAMARHI vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-03, DARBH, DARBH

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

ITA 80/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.80/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Punam Hisaria ………. Appellant (Pan: Abupa3945R)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 250Section 40

TDS was required to deducted as per section 194C(6) of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered these details and has confirmed the action of the AO. 5

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 194HSection 40

TDS under section 194H of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has submitted that as far as payment of Rs.3,38,970/- is concerned, this payment was made to Dr. Sitasaran Singh, who has already filed his return of income-tax and paid the taxes on the receipts from the assessee. The assessee has annexed copy of the letter

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1/PAT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 194HSection 40

TDS under section 194H of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has submitted that as far as payment of Rs.3,38,970/- is concerned, this payment was made to Dr. Sitasaran Singh, who has already filed his return of income-tax and paid the taxes on the receipts from the assessee. The assessee has annexed copy of the letter

DEEPAK SHRAWAN BUDHIA,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF I.T., PATNA-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 365/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 263Section 40

TDS on freight as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the 1. T. Act, 1961 was passed without considering all provisions of Sec 147 and without considering its exemption provisions. 5

INDIAN PAC CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, PATNA-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 32/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(1)Section 144ASection 194CSection 263

TDS i.e. deducted under sections 194C and 194A has been worked out at Rs.58,46,788/- on the total receipt of Rs.29,04,67,871/-. But in the Profit & Loss Account, the assessee had shown the short receipt namely against the aggregate receipt of Rs.29,00,00,000/-, it has shown the receipts of Rs.28,69,52,174/-. This

DINESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD (5), PATNA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 427/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.427/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dinesh Kumar……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/O Bhurendra Prasad, Near B D Public School, Buddha Colony, Patna – 800001. [Pan: Bxbpk1456M] Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Patna…………. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shailendra Sinha, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Showing Total Income Of Rs.2,71,810/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Followed By Notices Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Produce Books Of Accounts, Ledger, Cash Book Etc. Before Him But The Assessee Did Not Comply. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer After Verification Of Return Of Income Found That The Assessee Had Filed Balance Sheet Showing Gross Total Income Of Rs.36,00,712/- & The Assessee Incurred Miscellaneous

Section 143(2)Section 194Section 249(3)Section 250

section 194, Rs.4025927/- on which TDS was deducted. As the assessee was shown gross receipts of Rs.3600712/-, therefore, the difference of Rs.425212/- was treated as income from business and profession. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the unsecured loan of Rs.1445600/- and treated the same as income from other sources. Further, the Assessing Officer denied the claim under chapter

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(1) PATNA, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 330/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

TDS, Patna bearing appeal No. ITA No.117 to 119/PAT/2017, wherein the Hon'ble ITAT (at Para 7.4) has held that the appellant receives agency charges as consideration. Copy of judgment is enclosed. 11. That the appellant states that the ld assessing officer while passing the impugn order has altogether disallowed the whole deduction claimed under Section

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD.,PATNA vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 335/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

TDS, Patna bearing appeal No. ITA No.117 to 119/PAT/2017, wherein the Hon'ble ITAT (at Para 7.4) has held that the appellant receives agency charges as consideration. Copy of judgment is enclosed. 11. That the appellant states that the ld assessing officer while passing the impugn order has altogether disallowed the whole deduction claimed under Section

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 332/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

TDS, Patna bearing appeal No. ITA No.117 to 119/PAT/2017, wherein the Hon'ble ITAT (at Para 7.4) has held that the appellant receives agency charges as consideration. Copy of judgment is enclosed. 11. That the appellant states that the ld assessing officer while passing the impugn order has altogether disallowed the whole deduction claimed under Section

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 331/PAT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

TDS, Patna bearing appeal No. ITA No.117 to 119/PAT/2017, wherein the Hon'ble ITAT (at Para 7.4) has held that the appellant receives agency charges as consideration. Copy of judgment is enclosed. 11. That the appellant states that the ld assessing officer while passing the impugn order has altogether disallowed the whole deduction claimed under Section

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, P)ATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 333/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

TDS, Patna bearing appeal No. ITA No.117 to 119/PAT/2017, wherein the Hon'ble ITAT (at Para 7.4) has held that the appellant receives agency charges as consideration. Copy of judgment is enclosed. 11. That the appellant states that the ld assessing officer while passing the impugn order has altogether disallowed the whole deduction claimed under Section

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, COR-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 334/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

TDS, Patna bearing appeal No. ITA No.117 to 119/PAT/2017, wherein the Hon'ble ITAT (at Para 7.4) has held that the appellant receives agency charges as consideration. Copy of judgment is enclosed. 11. That the appellant states that the ld assessing officer while passing the impugn order has altogether disallowed the whole deduction claimed under Section

DHARMAVIR KUMAR,PATNA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 4, PATNA

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

ITA 70/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dharmavir Kumar Dc/Acit, Circle-4, C/O Naseeb Prasad, Income Tax Department, Lok Paithaninathpur,Narayan Chak, Nayak Jai Prakash Bhavan, New Vs. Phulwari. Dak Bunglow Road, Bihar-800002 Patna-800001, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Avzpk4382P Assessee By : Shri Sudeep Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudeep Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. A.H. Chowdhary, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 49Section 50CSection 96

TDS was also deducted under Section 194LA of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Though the assessee claimed the income to be exempt under Section 10(37) of the Act. However, no evidences were produced before the learned Assessing Officer. Finally, the learned Assessing Officer added the same on the ground that no documentary evidences were filed to substantiate

SANJAY KUMAR ,PATNA vs. ITO WARD-4(5) PATNA , PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 343/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 250Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 44A

5. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the NFAC has erred in not considering the fact of non-violations of sec. 40A(3). It ought to have granted adjournments and hear the case of the assessee properly and consider the material that would have produced by the appellant had real hearing is granted

DAKSHIN BIHAR GRAMIN BANK,BAMDAH BRANCH vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 351/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS return u/s 200A of the Act, fees, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. 4. The ld. counsel, in this respect, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of “Fatehraj Singhvi vs. Union of India” 73 Taxmann.com 252 order dated 26.08.2016, wherein

DAKSHIN BIHAR GRAMIN BANK,JHAJHA BRANCH vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 350/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS return u/s 200A of the Act, fees, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. 4. The ld. counsel, in this respect, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of “Fatehraj Singhvi vs. Union of India” 73 Taxmann.com 252 order dated 26.08.2016, wherein

DAKSHIN BIHAR GRAMIN BANK,KHATANGI (KURTHA) BRANCH vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 361/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS return u/s 200A of the Act, fees, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. 4. The ld. counsel, in this respect, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of “Fatehraj Singhvi vs. Union of India” 73 Taxmann.com 252 order dated 26.08.2016, wherein

DAKSHIN BIHAR GRAMIN BANK,JHAJHA BRANCH vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 349/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS return u/s 200A of the Act, fees, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. 4. The ld. counsel, in this respect, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of “Fatehraj Singhvi vs. Union of India” 73 Taxmann.com 252 order dated 26.08.2016, wherein