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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai497Delhi449Bangalore209Karnataka147Kolkata103Chennai83Chandigarh71Ahmedabad62Jaipur40Cochin40Raipur36Indore31Dehradun24Pune22Hyderabad18Cuttack14Amritsar13Jodhpur12Telangana10Visakhapatnam8Surat7SC6Guwahati5Panaji5Lucknow4Rajkot3Allahabad3Agra2Ranchi2Calcutta1J&K1Nagpur1Orissa1Kerala1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 2636Section 201(1)6Section 194C4Section 194J4Section 143(3)3Section 403Section 2012Section 92Survey u/s 133A2Deduction

SHRI CHAMUNDA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,TDS-2,, RAJKOT

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

ITA 32/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Income Tax Officer, Shri Chamunda Credit Cooperative Tds-2, Vs. Society Limited, Rajkot. Famous Shopping Centre, 150 Feet Ring Road, Near Parijat Party Plot, Chandra Park Main Road, Rajkot-360005. Pan: Aabas9343J

Section 194Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40

3 working like any other employee of the assessee. As such, they are working in the capacity of quasi-employment with society. 3.1 The assessee also claimed that all the agents have duly offered tax on the amount of commission collected from the assessee. Therefore the assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default. Consequentially, there cannot be any liability

2
TDS2

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is dismissed

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

194 (Rajkot - Trib.) held that where assessee had issued equity share to certain persons and out of 21 persons, only four persons had filed their balance sheets, which showed that huge amount of unsecured loans was availed by them and investments in share capital of assessee-company were made out of borrowed funds but A.O had accepted said share capital

INTERMARK SHIPPING AGENCIES P. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-4,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 640/RJT/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 640/Rjt/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Intermark Shipping Ito Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tds-4, Gandhidham, Ii Floor, Ajanta Comm. Plot No. 32, Sector-3, Center No. 1, Plot No. Gandhidham, Kachchh 277/278, Ward 12-B Gandhidham (Kutch) Pan No. Aaa Ci5 689 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Arvind Sontakka, Dr Assessee By : Shri M. J. Ranpura, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sontakka, DR
Section 1Section 133ASection 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 210(1)Section 9

TDS is applicable on Intermark Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO AY 2010-11 such reimbursement amount as the case made out by the assessee before the Revenue. However, such plea of the assessee was not found tenable. The Ld. AO was of the view that the certificate issued by the IT authority in favour of Mundra Port and Special