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.

11 results for “TDS”+ Section 194C(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai676Delhi607Kolkata415Bangalore283Chennai184Ahmedabad146Jaipur114Hyderabad89Cochin75Chandigarh61Pune58Indore55Karnataka50Raipur49Cuttack48Visakhapatnam45Rajkot42Nagpur40Amritsar29Jodhpur24Surat22Panaji18Patna17Lucknow16Jabalpur16Allahabad15Guwahati14Ranchi11Agra8Kerala8Telangana6SC5Calcutta4Dehradun3Varanasi3Rajasthan2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 4014Section 194C14Addition to Income8TDS7Section 143(3)5Section 133A4Disallowance4Deduction4Survey u/s 133A4Section 32(2)

K M MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & RESERCH CENTRE (P) LTD,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, HAZARIBAG

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 19/RAN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

TDS under Section 194C of the Act but since it 2 K.M. Memorial Hospital Vs ACIT has failed to deduct the same. The expenditure claimed at ₹ 3,00,000/- has to be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6

SHRI VINSHNU KUMAR JALAN,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-3, RANCHI

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

2
Section 31(1)2
Section 32(1)2
ITA 98/RAN/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed
ITAT Ranchi
21 May 2018
AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Poddar/Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, JCIT
Section 194(6)Section 194CSection 40

TDS on transport payments made if Form 15J was not submitted. As the assessee failed to do so, amount of Rs.4,84,980/- was disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) r.w. Section 194C of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer

ITO, TDS,, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 17/RAN/2022[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 133Section 133A

194C of the Act for not deducting TDS on the payments made to the transporters. The Assessing Officer finally concluded that during the assessment year under consideration, the assessee deductor has not deducted TDS on the payments made to the truck owners amounting to ₹ 2,86, 48,885/- and taxed at the maximum marginal rate under Section 206AA

ITO, TDS, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHHINAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 18/RAN/2022[16-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 133Section 133A

194C of the Act for not deducting TDS on the payments made to the transporters. The Assessing Officer finally concluded that during the assessment year under consideration, the assessee deductor has not deducted TDS on the payments made to the truck owners amounting to ₹ 2,86, 48,885/- and taxed at the maximum marginal rate under Section 206AA

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. SHRI VIJAY PRASAD, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 35/RAN/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi Shri Vijay Prasad Flat No. 202, Madhusudan Sir Vs Krishanapuri, Dimna Road Mango, Jamshedpur-831012. Pan: Ailpp 0228 L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Ran/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 35/Ran/2021) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vijay Prasad Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi Flat No. 202, Madhusudan Sir Vs Krishanapuri, Dimna Road Mango, Jamshedpur-831012. Pan: Ailpp 0228 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: Jm This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-3, Patna Dated 09.03.2021 Against Same Impugned Order A Cross-Objection Also Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 19/Ran/2021. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 11.09.2012 Showing Total Income Of Rs. 14,32,834/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Assessment In The Case Of Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 28.03.2014 Determining Total Income Of Rs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 194(7)Section 194CSection 40

194C r.w.s. 206AA of the income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the ld. AO disallowed such amount in the hands of assessee by assessing the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,18,89,846/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 4. Dissatisfied

M/S P.K.UPADHYAY vs. ITO WARD-3(5), PALAMAU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 105/RAN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi03 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 06.12.2010 declaring total income of Rs.3,18,050/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny assessment and assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on 31.12.2012. The ld. Assessing Officer has determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.3

ITO, TDS WARD, RANCHI vs. M/S AWADHESH SINGH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,, RANCHI

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 281/RAN/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Sept 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

section 194C TDS deduction. He also took us to the assessee’s survey statement making it clear in the penultimate paragraph that he had never made the payments to labour contractors and sub-contractors; as the case may be. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival pleadings. There is hardly any dispute between the parties

ITO, TDS WARD, RANCHI vs. M/S AWADHESH SINGH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,, RANCHI

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 280/RAN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Sept 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

section 194C TDS deduction. He also took us to the assessee’s survey statement making it clear in the penultimate paragraph that he had never made the payments to labour contractors and sub-contractors; as the case may be. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival pleadings. There is hardly any dispute between the parties

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 298/RAN/2017[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 31(1)Section 32(1)Section 32(2)

6,78,69,000/-. Accordingly, we sustained the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Since we have dismissed the revenue’s appeal and the cross-objection filed by the assessee stands allowed. 11. Now, we would like to decide ITA No. 290/Ran/2017. C.O. No. 07/Ran/2018 AY: 2008-09 M/s. Bharat Coking

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/RAN/2017[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 31(1)Section 32(1)Section 32(2)

6,78,69,000/-. Accordingly, we sustained the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Since we have dismissed the revenue’s appeal and the cross-objection filed by the assessee stands allowed. 11. Now, we would like to decide ITA No. 290/Ran/2017. C.O. No. 07/Ran/2018 AY: 2008-09 M/s. Bharat Coking

ITO WARD-1(40, JSR vs. M/S ANAND VIHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, JSR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 335/RAN/2017[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-2015 Ito, Ward-1(4), Jamshedpur Vs M/S Anand Vihar Construction Pvt. Ltd., 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur- 831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Co No.02/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/S Anand Vihar Construction Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur-831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

section 194C does not attract in this case and therefore consequential disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is also not attracted. And CO No.02/Ran/2018 Therefore disallowance made for Rs. 2,15,01,768/- is not proper and is hereby deleted. Further the CIT(A) in respect of third ground, has granted relief of Rs.71,128/- out of the total addition