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.

7 results for “TDS”+ Section 194C(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai648Delhi579Kolkata376Bangalore284Chennai173Jaipur84Hyderabad78Ahmedabad75Indore49Karnataka48Raipur44Rajkot29Amritsar24Pune23Cochin22Nagpur21Chandigarh20Patna19Jodhpur18Surat18Panaji16Visakhapatnam13Allahabad13Cuttack11Guwahati11Jabalpur11Lucknow8Kerala8Ranchi7SC5Telangana4Calcutta4Dehradun3Varanasi3Agra3Rajasthan2Gauhati1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 408Addition to Income7Section 143(3)4Section 194C4TDS3Section 32(2)2Section 31(1)2Section 32(1)2Section 1482Section 133

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. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been preferred before us. During the course

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

2
Disallowance2
Business Income2
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

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

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

7. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 8. With the assistance of ld. D.R., we have gone through the record carefully. It is pertinent to observe that the assessee was engaged in civil construction and other activities. The time extension amounts are those funds, which the contractee does not disburse

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)

7,41,75,000/- which was not filed at the time of original assessment. On verification of the said list, no discrepancy has been detected.” Therefore, the contention of the ld. AR is that the deficiency found at the time of original assessment duly met by the appellant, therefore, the addition should have been deleted. However, during the appellate proceeding

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)

7,41,75,000/- which was not filed at the time of original assessment. On verification of the said list, no discrepancy has been detected.” Therefore, the contention of the ld. AR is that the deficiency found at the time of original assessment duly met by the appellant, therefore, the addition should have been deleted. However, during the appellate proceeding