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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Section 167B(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai12Pune5Ahmedabad3Chandigarh3Cuttack3Lucknow2Hyderabad2Bangalore1SC1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 4016Section 194C9TDS5Disallowance5Deduction3Addition to Income2

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE vs. SHRADDHA & PRASAD JOINT VENTURE,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2665/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2665/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 194CSection 40

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 A.Y.2014-15 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that in absence of any contract or sub-contract work by the Joint

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3),, PUNE vs. SUBHASH & B.T. PATIL & SONS & N.V.KHAROTE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1060/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Ulhas KiniFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 40

1 to 5 of the appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for the year under consideration.” 8. We also find that Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No. 1505/PUN/2017 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee placing reliance again on assessee‟s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -6 (3), PUNE vs. SUBHASH AND B.T. PATIL & SONS AND N.V. KHAROTE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1505/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ulhas KiniFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.28,61,50,769/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of payments made towards subcontract, when the assessee has failed to deduct TDS from such payments u/s 194C

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. SHRADDHA & PRASAD JV KHURA VARODA,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 35/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 35/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 194CSection 40

1:0. Such assignments of the work to the members as per the Memorandum of Understanding agreed upon is not equivalent to sub- contract per se and thus the assessee AOP was not liable to deduct tax at source out of the amount distributed amongst the members of the AOP in the agreed ratio of respective share. The Assessing Officer

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. SHRADDHA & IHP JV WANGANA PROJECT,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 36/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 35/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 194CSection 40

1:0. Such assignments of the work to the members as per the Memorandum of Understanding agreed upon is not equivalent to sub- contract per se and thus the assessee AOP was not liable to deduct tax at source out of the amount distributed amongst the members of the AOP in the agreed ratio of respective share. The Assessing Officer