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.

27 results for “TDS”+ Section 194(3)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai509Delhi505Bangalore223Karnataka177Kolkata110Chennai109Chandigarh94Ahmedabad85Cochin51Jaipur48Raipur40Indore37Dehradun33Pune27Visakhapatnam22Hyderabad22Cuttack22Amritsar14Telangana13Rajkot8SC7Allahabad7Panaji5Surat5Guwahati4Lucknow3Jabalpur3Patna3Jodhpur1Agra1Calcutta1J&K1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Kerala1Nagpur1Orissa1Ranchi1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 234E72Section 200A32Section 25020Section 15416TDS14Section 26311Section 4011Disallowance11Section 143(3)10Section 10A

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

ITA 1046/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 143(3)Section 194

v Vegetable Products Ltd 88 ITR 192 (SC)]. 2.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in not considering the fact that the nomenclature 'Wharfage' given by an assessee cannot determine the nature of payment and tax provisions cannot be applied on that basis without examining the true nature of the payment and there can be no afterthought in such matters. 3

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

10
Addition to Income9
Deduction8

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

ITA 2148/PUN/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 143(3)Section 194

v Vegetable Products Ltd 88 ITR 192 (SC)]. 2.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in not considering the fact that the nomenclature 'Wharfage' given by an assessee cannot determine the nature of payment and tax provisions cannot be applied on that basis without examining the true nature of the payment and there can be no afterthought in such matters. 3

LOKMANGAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 522/PUN/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Lokmangal Co-Operative Bank Ltd., 128, Murarji Peth, Near Seva Sadan High School, Solapur – 413 001 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaaal0119J

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 194(1)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 40

TDS on its interest payments. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant arguments as we are in assessment year 2010-11 whereas “a cooperative bank” has been excluded from the purview of section 194(A)(3)(v

MAHESH URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1485/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani
Section 119Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194ASection 40Section 80P

TDS on its interest payments. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant arguments as we are in assessment year 2010-11 whereas “a cooperative bank” has been excluded from the purview of section 194(A)(3)(v

M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

Section 115Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 4

V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, s Commissioner of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. PAN: AABCP1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – AR Revenue by Shri Vidya Ratan - DR Date of hearing 18/12/2024 Date of pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This

MAHESH URBAN CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 583/PUN/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.583/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mahesh Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., 128, Near Old Faujdar, Shukruwar Peth, Solapur – 413 002. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaaam0511H

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 119Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 80P

TDS on its interest payments. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant arguments as we are in assessment year 2010- 11 whereas “a cooperative bank” has been excluded from the purview of section 194(A)(3)(v

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 611/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

TDS) was cumbersome and involves a lot of paper work and collection from the company would be much easier. (ii) Since there was no tax incidence in the hands of the shareholder that would encourage investment in the shares of domestic companies. Sec.115O so introduced in Chapter XII-D of the Act reads thus: “115-O. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

v) CIT vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd., 91 taxman 359. 19. In the light of this legal position, we are of the considered opinion that neither the impugned expenditure falls within the ambit of “managerial services” as defined in section 9(1)(vii) of the Act nor liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194J of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing

RBL BANK LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 650/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.650/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 194Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 40

194(A)(3)(iii)(a) whereby no tax is required to be deducted at source in respect of any interest credited or paid to any banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) applies or any co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking (including a co-operative land mortgage bank). 3

M/S. TATA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1433/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1433/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Tata Technologies Limited, Plot No.25, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hingewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aaact3092N Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (International Taxation)-Ii, Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna and Arpitha ChoudaryFor Respondent: S/Shri Vivek Aggarwal and Mukesh Jha
Section 115ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)

3 under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and held that the payment for right to use was therefore in the nature of royalty and taxable under clause (v) of Explanation 2 of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further referred to clarification issued by the Finance Act, 2012 which had vide Explanation 4 provided

VIRAJ ESTATES PVT LTD,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1167/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

section of levy of late fee u/s 234E is a statutory provision effective from the year 2012 but there was no machinery provision u/s 200A of the Act which empowered the AO to make adjustment on account of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that in respect of TDS

VIRAJ ESTATE PVT LTD,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1166/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

section of levy of late fee u/s 234E is a statutory provision effective from the year 2012 but there was no machinery provision u/s 200A of the Act which empowered the AO to make adjustment on account of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that in respect of TDS

VIRAJ ESTATE PVT LTD,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1163/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

section of levy of late fee u/s 234E is a statutory provision effective from the year 2012 but there was no machinery provision u/s 200A of the Act which empowered the AO to make adjustment on account of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that in respect of TDS

VIRAJ ESTATE PVT LTD,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1168/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

section of levy of late fee u/s 234E is a statutory provision effective from the year 2012 but there was no machinery provision u/s 200A of the Act which empowered the AO to make adjustment on account of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that in respect of TDS

VIRAJ ESTATE PVT LTD,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1162/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

section of levy of late fee u/s 234E is a statutory provision effective from the year 2012 but there was no machinery provision u/s 200A of the Act which empowered the AO to make adjustment on account of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that in respect of TDS

VIRAJ ESTATE PVT LTD,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1165/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

section of levy of late fee u/s 234E is a statutory provision effective from the year 2012 but there was no machinery provision u/s 200A of the Act which empowered the AO to make adjustment on account of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that in respect of TDS

VIRAJ ESTATE PVT LTD,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1161/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

section of levy of late fee u/s 234E is a statutory provision effective from the year 2012 but there was no machinery provision u/s 200A of the Act which empowered the AO to make adjustment on account of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that in respect of TDS

VIRAJ ESTATE PVT LTD,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1164/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

section of levy of late fee u/s 234E is a statutory provision effective from the year 2012 but there was no machinery provision u/s 200A of the Act which empowered the AO to make adjustment on account of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that in respect of TDS

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1375/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

TDS @1% u/s 1941A would also be required to be deducted for extra amenities such as club membership fees, car parking fee, electricity and water facility. maintenance fee or any other charges of similar nature paid at the time of purchase of property which are incidental to transfer of the immovable property. From the above it is clear that there

M/S. PIMPRI- CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. JT.. CIT RG-10 PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 614/PUN/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kihor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Meena
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 148Section 263

TDS u/s 194-I of the Act, which, therefore, rules out the application of Circular No.05/2001. It is further noted that the CBDT has recently clarified vide Circular No.35/2016 dated 13.10.2016 that on the amount of lump sum lease premium, which is not adjustable against the periodic rent, as is the case under consideration as well, there is no requirement