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.

22 results for “TDS”+ Section 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai337Delhi302Bangalore106Kolkata105Chennai79Jaipur40Indore39Ahmedabad39Hyderabad38Karnataka27Cuttack25Pune22Rajkot21Chandigarh20Amritsar10Cochin9Surat7Patna7Raipur6Visakhapatnam6Lucknow5Telangana4Jabalpur3SC3Calcutta3Guwahati3Allahabad3Nagpur3Jodhpur2Kerala2Ranchi2Panaji1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)33Section 194H27Deduction16Section 20113TDS13Addition to Income10Section 143(3)8Section 407Section 271C7Section 148

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 807/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.807 & 808/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 194HSection 200Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS Officer under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act by treating "discount" offered by the Appellant to the Distributors as "commission" and thereby treating the Appellant as an "assessee in default" under section 201(1) r w s 194H

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

6
Disallowance6
Section 1474

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 808/PUN/2016[2013-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2018AY 2013-04

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.807 & 808/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 194HSection 200Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS Officer under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act by treating "discount" offered by the Appellant to the Distributors as "commission" and thereby treating the Appellant as an "assessee in default" under section 201(1) r w s 194H

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD., (FORMERLY: BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LTD.,),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objections of assessee are dismissed

ITA 356/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.356/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar
Section 201Section 271C

TDS under sections 194C, 194J, 194H and 194I of the Act. The said non-deduction of TDS was reported by the auditors

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS,, PUNE vs. M/S. VODAFONE IDEA LTD, (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS IDEA CELLULAR LTD),, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 730/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.729 To 735/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

Section 194H of the Act as held by the Assessing Officer and erred in not holding the Appellant as an „assessee in default‟ for the non deduction of tax at source u/s. 201(1) r.w.s. 194H of the I.T. Act 1961. 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in a law, the order passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS,, PUNE vs. M/S. VODAFONE IDEA LTD, (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD), PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 733/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.729 To 735/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

Section 194H of the Act as held by the Assessing Officer and erred in not holding the Appellant as an „assessee in default‟ for the non deduction of tax at source u/s. 201(1) r.w.s. 194H of the I.T. Act 1961. 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in a law, the order passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS,, PUNE vs. M/S. VODAFONE IDEA LTD, (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS IDEA CELLULAR LTD),, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 735/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.729 To 735/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

Section 194H of the Act as held by the Assessing Officer and erred in not holding the Appellant as an „assessee in default‟ for the non deduction of tax at source u/s. 201(1) r.w.s. 194H of the I.T. Act 1961. 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in a law, the order passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS,, PUNE vs. M/S. VODAFONE IDEA LTD, (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD),, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 729/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.729 To 735/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

Section 194H of the Act as held by the Assessing Officer and erred in not holding the Appellant as an „assessee in default‟ for the non deduction of tax at source u/s. 201(1) r.w.s. 194H of the I.T. Act 1961. 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in a law, the order passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS,, PUNE vs. M/S. VODAFONE IDEA LTD, (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD), PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 731/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.729 To 735/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

Section 194H of the Act as held by the Assessing Officer and erred in not holding the Appellant as an „assessee in default‟ for the non deduction of tax at source u/s. 201(1) r.w.s. 194H of the I.T. Act 1961. 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in a law, the order passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS,, PUNE vs. M/S. VODAFONE IDEA LTD, (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS IDEA CELLULAR LTD),, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 732/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.729 To 735/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

Section 194H of the Act as held by the Assessing Officer and erred in not holding the Appellant as an „assessee in default‟ for the non deduction of tax at source u/s. 201(1) r.w.s. 194H of the I.T. Act 1961. 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in a law, the order passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS,, PUNE vs. M/S. VODAFONE IDEA LTD, (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD), PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 734/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.729 To 735/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

Section 194H of the Act as held by the Assessing Officer and erred in not holding the Appellant as an „assessee in default‟ for the non deduction of tax at source u/s. 201(1) r.w.s. 194H of the I.T. Act 1961. 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in a law, the order passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. FOSECO INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 2215/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak / Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

194H of the Act. 8. The provisions relating to deduction of tax at source on payment of fee for professional or technical services are contained in section 194J. The provisions of section 194J have been amended by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 01-07-2012 vide which Clause (ba) has been inserted in sub-section (1) of section 194J

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)

TDS u/s 194J of the Act and justified the action of the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 22. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. There is no material on record to show that the HUL had provided any services like technical or managerial in nature

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK vs. SINNAR TALUKA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK PRAKRIYA SANGH MARYADIT,, SINNAR

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 401/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: None/Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu
Section 194HSection 40

TDS as per the provisions of section 194H of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

SARIKA VITTHAL GUND,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 1836/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 69A

section 66 can be made even for an unexplained credit amount on account of supply of goods, and not necessarily only for a cash credit SLP dismissed by Supreme Court on account of delay." 9.7 There is no documentary evidence on record to explain the sources of the credit entries. Further, as per the normal standard operating procedure no bank

SARIKA VITTHAL GUND,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 1835/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 69A

section 66 can be made even for an unexplained credit amount on account of supply of goods, and not necessarily only for a cash credit SLP dismissed by Supreme Court on account of delay." 9.7 There is no documentary evidence on record to explain the sources of the credit entries. Further, as per the normal standard operating procedure no bank

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 357/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 32Section 36(1)(va)

section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date of respective statutes, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction from the total income. Therefore, in our opinion, essential condition for claiming such deduction if such amounts are deposited on or before due date

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 356/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 32Section 36(1)(va)

section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date of respective statutes, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction from the total income. Therefore, in our opinion, essential condition for claiming such deduction if such amounts are deposited on or before due date

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 355/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 32Section 36(1)(va)

section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date of respective statutes, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction from the total income. Therefore, in our opinion, essential condition for claiming such deduction if such amounts are deposited on or before due date

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 354/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 32Section 36(1)(va)

section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date of respective statutes, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction from the total income. Therefore, in our opinion, essential condition for claiming such deduction if such amounts are deposited on or before due date

FARUK RAFIK MUJAWAR,ICHALKARANJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ICHALKARANJI

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

ITA 1344/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194HSection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274Section 44A

TDS was deducted u/s 194H of the IT Act and the return of income has not been furnished, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 31.03.2022 to the assessee. In response to this notice, the assessee furnished his return of income disclosing capital gain from sale of immovable property