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 194Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai703Delhi651Kolkata440Bangalore297Chennai190Jaipur85Hyderabad81Ahmedabad78Indore51Karnataka50Raipur44Rajkot29Pune27Cochin25Amritsar25Nagpur23Jodhpur23Chandigarh21Patna19Panaji18Surat17Visakhapatnam14Guwahati12Cuttack12Jabalpur11Ranchi10Allahabad9Lucknow9Kerala8Calcutta7Telangana7SC5Agra5Dehradun4Varanasi3Rajasthan2Orissa1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 194C31TDS23Section 26322Section 4020Section 14820Addition to Income17Section 271B16Section 133(6)15Section 201(1)13Section 144

HEMANT ENTERPRISES,NASHIK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

ITA 394/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Deepa Khare-AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 199Section 234A

194C, section 194D, section 194E, section 195 and section 196A, the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from that income." 8 ITA.No.394/PUN/2025 (Hemant Enterprises) 20. From the language of section 205, it is clear that once the tax is deducted at source, the same cannot

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

11
Deduction11
Disallowance9

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

Section 194C were not applicable for the purpose of TDS, without appreciating the fact that the work contract order was issued

WALVEKAR BROTHERS & CO,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Smt. J.R. ChandekarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(2)Section 192Section 194ASection 194BSection 194CSection 194DSection 194ESection 195Section 196ASection 205

194C, section 194D, section 194E, section 195 and section 196A, the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from that income” 20. From the language of section 205, it is clear that once the tax is deducted at source, the same cannot be levied once again

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

194C of the Act. (e) The assessee had failed to deduct tax from the payments made to its members the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would apply. 6. the A.O further held that the assessee had claimed TDS

AJAY ENGINEERING & AGRI EQUIPMENT COMPANY,AURANGABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 156/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 194CSection 194JSection 194J(1)Section 244ASection 263Section 40

TDS u/s. 194C : 6.1. The ld. Pr.CIT observed in the show cause notice that the AO ought to have made disallowance of Transport Expenses of Rs.37,19,441/- u/s.40(a)(ia) for failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source u/s.194C of the Act. The assessee submitted before the ld. Pr.CIT that the case was covered

M/S. ORGANICA,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK -1, NASHIK

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

ITA 465/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 80I

TDS on the balance amount of payments and nothing is on record to show that Ld. AO had made verification as per the provisions of section 194C

PUDHARI PUBLICATIONS PVT.LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1396/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1394 To 1396/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Pudhari Publications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), Kolhapur. 2318 C-Ward, Bhausingji Road, Pudhari Bhawan Karveer, Kolhapur- 416002. Pan : Aadcp2453Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-4, Kolkata Dated 02.05.2024 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1394/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2015-16 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271H

TDS was made by the Appellant. It is seen that the Appellant has explained the same before the Ld A O and the Ld A O has explained with Section 194C

PUDHARI PUBLICATIONS PVT.LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1394/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1394 To 1396/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Pudhari Publications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), Kolhapur. 2318 C-Ward, Bhausingji Road, Pudhari Bhawan Karveer, Kolhapur- 416002. Pan : Aadcp2453Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-4, Kolkata Dated 02.05.2024 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1394/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2015-16 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271H

TDS was made by the Appellant. It is seen that the Appellant has explained the same before the Ld A O and the Ld A O has explained with Section 194C

PUDHARI PUBLICATIONS PVT.LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1395/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1394 To 1396/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Pudhari Publications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), Kolhapur. 2318 C-Ward, Bhausingji Road, Pudhari Bhawan Karveer, Kolhapur- 416002. Pan : Aadcp2453Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-4, Kolkata Dated 02.05.2024 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1394/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2015-16 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271H

TDS was made by the Appellant. It is seen that the Appellant has explained the same before the Ld A O and the Ld A O has explained with Section 194C

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 885/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Moray
Section 194CSection 263

section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS thereupon. 3. The assessee

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 884/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Moray
Section 194CSection 263

section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS thereupon. 3. The assessee

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 883/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Moray
Section 194CSection 263

section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS thereupon. 3. The assessee

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

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

ITA 2471/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 206CSection 270ASection 271A

TDS statement payment to contractors (section 194C) transaction with Shri Sharda amounting to Rs.1,15,71,228/-. (ii) TCS statement

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

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

ITA 2472/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 206CSection 270ASection 271A

TDS statement payment to contractors (section 194C) transaction with Shri Sharda amounting to Rs.1,15,71,228/-. (ii) TCS statement

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

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

ITA 2473/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 206CSection 270ASection 271A

TDS statement payment to contractors (section 194C) transaction with Shri Sharda amounting to Rs.1,15,71,228/-. (ii) TCS statement

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, LATUR

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

ITA 2470/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 206CSection 270ASection 271A

TDS statement payment to contractors (section 194C) transaction with Shri Sharda amounting to Rs.1,15,71,228/-. (ii) TCS statement

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MHASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PUNE

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

ITA 2469/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 206CSection 270ASection 271A

TDS statement payment to contractors (section 194C) transaction with Shri Sharda amounting to Rs.1,15,71,228/-. (ii) TCS statement

MAHAVIR ADINATH SALVE,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1),, SOLAPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 441/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.441/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Mahavir Adinath Salve, The Ito, Ward-1(1), Solapur. House No.930, Nagane Plot Vs Paranda Road, Barshi, . Solapur – 413411. Pan: Arxps 5761 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri V L Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 15.11.2018 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Cir- 1/0804/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

section 194C and 1941 and concluded that the appellant cannot claim non deduction of the payments made to the subcontractors and machinery hirers on submission of 15G/15H forms. It was held that there is no provision for non-deduction of TDS

SMT. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL),, NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1123/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 263

TDS deduction u/s. 194C of the Act or any other provision as the case may be. And further that there existed contractual relationship between payer-payees hereunder. We thus quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. R B Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) and the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons have

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2338/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

TDS has been deducted on these receipts u/s. 194C of the Act. This submission of the appellant has not been disputed by the AO in his remand report. Moreover, it is seen from the assessment order that the AO has not given any basis of estimating the income @ 25%. Considering these facts, the contention of the appellant that the profit