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.

57 results for “TDS”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,023Delhi2,821Bangalore1,359Chennai1,198Kolkata971Ahmedabad641Hyderabad589Pune374Cochin368Jaipur331Indore277Chandigarh263Karnataka223Raipur201Visakhapatnam182Cuttack181Surat168Rajkot121Nagpur93Lucknow81Amritsar73Jabalpur69Ranchi57Jodhpur50Guwahati50Dehradun45Agra39Allahabad31Panaji29Telangana29Patna28Calcutta13Kerala11Varanasi11SC9Uttarakhand2Gauhati1Rajasthan1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 4045Disallowance44Depreciation34Section 14A29Addition to Income29Section 35E27Section 234A27Section 194C26Section 271C24Section 143(3)

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

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

ITA 130/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.130/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Finance Directorate, Ground Floor, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad-826005. [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad…..……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Saumyajit Das Gupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 26, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.09.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 40

TDS and another one against the order under section 143(3) of the Act for disallowance under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. The disallowance

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3

22
TDS20
Section 26319

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 was deducted. The Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed the entire amount under Section 40

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 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act is hereby deleted.” The CIT(A) in respect of second ground of addition of Rs.2,15,01,768/- made on account of payment made to labour without deducting TDS

SRI KRISHNA NUTRITIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/RAN/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194CSection 40

TDS on the payments to the labour sardars, the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) and had disallowed

SRI KRISHNA NUTRITIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 262/RAN/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194CSection 40

TDS on the payments to the labour sardars, the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) and had disallowed

SRI KRISHNA NUTRITIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 263/RAN/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194CSection 40

TDS on the payments to the labour sardars, the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) and had disallowed

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)

TDS was not deducted in violation of provision of section 40(a)(ia). The disallowance made is unjustified and illegal

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)

TDS was not deducted in violation of provision of section 40(a)(ia). The disallowance made is unjustified and illegal

M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,,DHANBAD vs. JCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 76/RAN/2024[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194ASection 201Section 271CSection 273BSection 40

40(a)(ia) has been made by Assessing Officer, in assessment proceedings, the same amount could not be considered as an amount covered by provisions of section 194A so as to raise TDS

M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,DHANBAD vs. JT. CIT, TDS,, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 75/RAN/2024[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194ASection 201Section 271CSection 273BSection 40

40(a)(ia) has been made by Assessing Officer, in assessment proceedings, the same amount could not be considered as an amount covered by provisions of section 194A so as to raise TDS

M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,DHANBAD vs. JCIT TDS, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 77/RAN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194ASection 201Section 271CSection 273BSection 40

40(a)(ia) has been made by Assessing Officer, in assessment proceedings, the same amount could not be considered as an amount covered by provisions of section 194A so as to raise TDS

M/S NEW PUNJAB MOTOR TRANSPORT ,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for

ITA 315/RAN/2017[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Section 194CSection 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 10. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer disallowed interest payment of Rs.4,36,006/- to M/s. SREI Equipments Finance Pvt Ltd., and M/s. Tata Capital Ltd., on the ground that the assesse failed to deduct TDS

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

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act by holding that "Admittedly, in this case despite making contrary observation, the ITO/TDS has accepted the transportation payment as genuine that is why he has computed the TDS liability on those payments u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A). Therefore, it is not in dispute that the transportation payments has been

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

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act by holding that "Admittedly, in this case despite making contrary observation, the ITO/TDS has accepted the transportation payment as genuine that is why he has computed the TDS liability on those payments u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A). Therefore, it is not in dispute that the transportation payments has been

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

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

ITA 98/RAN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 May 2018AY 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

40(a)(ia) of the Act calls for disallowance of any amount paid without deducting TDS which was liable for such deduction. The assessee was liable to deduct 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

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

40(a)(ia) of the Act. On this issue also, the ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur bench in the case of ACIT vs M/s. Arihant Trading Co. dated 19.03.2019 where tribunal has held as under: “In the instant case, once the assessee is in receipt of PAN and has not deducted TDS

M/S STROKES ADVERTISING PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT,C-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 81/RAN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi26 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Strokes Advertising Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi C/O Sri Vinay Kumar Jalan, M/S O.P.Jalan & Associates Consultants Llp, 48 Cart Sarai Road, Upper Bazaar, Ranchi, Jharkhand, Pin-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aancs 6471 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vinay Kumar Jalan, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, Jharkhand, Dated 31.10.2018 Passed In First Appeal No.Cit(A), Ranchi/10077/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The 50% Of Total Disallowance Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.2,53,884/- With Respect To The Amounts Debited In The P&L Account Relating To Fuel Expenses, Fabrications Works, Mounting Of Flex & Site Expenses 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,47,400/ Considering It To Be Commission Paid Without Deduction Of Tds.”

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kumar Jalan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 44A

TDS on the small payments made to them which was below Rs.5000/- a day per a person. Ld. AR submitted that as the amount paid is below rs.5000/-, thus, the same does not attract provision of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Therefore, the AO was not right in invoking provisions of Section 40

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

In the result, all the captioned appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 299/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad............................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................……...…..…..Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] I.T.A No.123/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................................…… Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant C.O No.08/Ran/2018 (In Ita No.299/Ran/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd..................................................... …Cross-Objector Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant Appearances By: Shri Rinku Singh, Cit- Dr., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri M. K. Choudhary With Devesh Poddar, Adv Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2023

Section 250Section 32(2)

section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years without any limit whatsoever.” 8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that of the Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (supra

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

In the result, all the captioned appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 123/RAN/2018[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad............................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................……...…..…..Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] I.T.A No.123/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................................…… Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant C.O No.08/Ran/2018 (In Ita No.299/Ran/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd..................................................... …Cross-Objector Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant Appearances By: Shri Rinku Singh, Cit- Dr., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri M. K. Choudhary With Devesh Poddar, Adv Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2023

Section 250Section 32(2)

section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years without any limit whatsoever.” 8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that of the Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (supra

DEVPRABHA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD.,,DHANBAD vs. PCIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Devprabha Construction Private Ltd., P.C.I.T., Dev Villa, Behind Radha Swamy Arcade, Dhanbad, Vs. Saraidhela, Dhanbad-828127. Aayakar Bhawan, Luby Pan No. Aaecb 2652 A Circular Road, Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand) Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 263 of the Act. f) That as such, the allegation of the PCIT that the AO has only looked into 5 persons/entities out of the 7 persons to whom hire charges was paid without deduction of TDS is factually incorrect. 4. That with respect to the 2nd issue i.e. hire charges paid to related persons U/s 40