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.

16 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai305Delhi219Kolkata98Bangalore94Chennai75Jaipur19Karnataka19Rajkot16Chandigarh10Ahmedabad9Hyderabad7Pune7Raipur5Surat4Indore4Telangana4Lucknow4Amritsar4Patna4Calcutta3Jodhpur3Allahabad3Nagpur2Cochin2Kerala2SC2Guwahati1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 4032Section 271(1)(c)24Disallowance16Addition to Income16Section 143(3)13TDS13Section 139(1)12Section 2506Section 271A6Section 132

M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 315/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

disallowance of Rs. 9,73,33,826/- being export commission paid to non-resident agents, u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground of non-deduction of TDS. The case of the Revenue is this that the person making payment to the non-resident would be liable to be deducted tax under Section 194H

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S DML EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 27/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020
6
Section 153A6
Unexplained Investment6
AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

disallowance of Rs. 9,73,33,826/- being export commission paid to non-resident agents, u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground of non-deduction of TDS. The case of the Revenue is this that the person making payment to the non-resident would be liable to be deducted tax under Section 194H

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 360/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

disallowance of Rs. 9,73,33,826/- being export commission paid to non-resident agents, u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground of non-deduction of TDS. The case of the Revenue is this that the person making payment to the non-resident would be liable to be deducted tax under Section 194H

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S DML EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 232/RJT/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194H would come into play only when the payers has not deducted the tax at source

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. D.M.L. WORLD TRADE PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

ITA 233/RJT/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194H would come into play only when the payers has not deducted the tax at source

THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT MEENABEN H LAKHANI, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 229/RJT/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194H would come into play only when the payers has not deducted the tax at source

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (2), RAJKOT vs. SHRI NARENDRA NANJIBHAI DAVDA, RAJKOT

ITA 230/RJT/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194H would come into play only when the payers has not deducted the tax at source

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

ITA 231/RJT/2017[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194H would come into play only when the payers has not deducted the tax at source

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

ITA 234/RJT/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194H would come into play only when the payers has not deducted the tax at source

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 79/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 81/RJT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 80/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

section 194H of the Income tax Act 1961. Therefore the\nclaim of payment of commission amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- was disallowed

HARDIKKUMAR MAGANBHAI THUMAR,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed for statical purpose

ITA 625/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 625/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Hardikkumar Maganbhai Thumar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward Jetalsar, Jetalsar Post, Jetpur Rajkot- 1(1)(1),/Rkt. 360360.Gujarat It Office, New Aaykar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot. Gujarat 360360 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Axupt8837F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kishor Gheewala, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23 / 12 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Gheewala, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 194HSection 250Section 40

194H as commission/brokerage. Assessee failed to produce satisfactory evidences to substantiate the facts. As per the section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, being disallowance