Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

63 results for “TDS”+ Section 6clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,019 Delhi5,796 Bangalore2,808 Chennai2,471 Kolkata1,710 Pune1,140 Ahmedabad751 Hyderabad677 Cochin621 Patna556 Jaipur470 Indore420 Karnataka390 Raipur387 Nagpur340 Chandigarh322 Surat253 Visakhapatnam211 Rajkot199 Lucknow175 Cuttack130 Jodhpur108 Amritsar102 Dehradun94 Telangana68 Ranchi63 Guwahati60 Panaji58 Agra57 Jabalpur42 SC24 Calcutta19 Allahabad18 Kerala17 Varanasi11 Rajasthan9 Himachal Pradesh8 Punjab & Haryana5 Orissa4 Uttarakhand3 J&K3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Gauhati1 Bombay1

Key Topics

Disallowance32 TDS30 Section 80I28 Section 200A28 Addition to Income27 Section 271C24 Section 26323 Section 143(3)22 Depreciation22 Section 234E

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

TDS within the meaning of section 273B of the Act. 6. For that the appellant craves leave to add, amend

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4

20

ITA 76/RAN/2024[09-10]Status: Disposed

ITAT Ranchi

29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194ASection 201Section 271CSection 273BSection 40

TDS within the meaning of section 273B of the Act. 6. For that the appellant craves leave to add, amend

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

TDS within the meaning of section 273B of the Act. 6. For that the appellant craves leave to add, amend

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR vs. BENKO TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 436/RAN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Cc, Jamshedpur…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, Block D, White House, Park Stree, Wb – 700016. [Pan: Aabcb1888R] Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Dated 25.09.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139 Of The Act Declaring A Total Income As Nil. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 28.11.2017 Determining The Total Income At ₹9,88,28,406. Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, Relating To Alleged Use Of Stock Exchange Platform (Bse/Nse) For Generating Fictitious Long-Term/Short-Term Capital Gains Through Certain Scripts & Alleged Accommodation Entries, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons Under Section 147 Of The Act. A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued The Assessee Filed Its Return Declaring The Same Income

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

6. We have considered the rival submissions and examined the record. It is an admitted fact that the sum of ₹1,64,60,100 represents gross sale proceeds, the transactions are duly recorded in books, the AO has not disputed that the corresponding profit was already included in the assessee’s taxable income, all transactions were executed through a registered

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

6,84,08,367.00 4,24,21,613.00 2,59,86,754.00 Shri Dinesh Kumar Choudhary stated that while making payments to various transporters, no TDS has been deducted barring a few entity as these transporters were having less than ten vehicles/carriers, however, Shri Dinesh Kumar Choudhary could not produce any documents evidence/proof like bills, vouchers, debit note made

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

6,84,08,367.00 4,24,21,613.00 2,59,86,754.00 Shri Dinesh Kumar Choudhary stated that while making payments to various transporters, no TDS has been deducted barring a few entity as these transporters were having less than ten vehicles/carriers, however, Shri Dinesh Kumar Choudhary could not produce any documents evidence/proof like bills, vouchers, debit note made

SANJAY CHAWLA,CHAIBASA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/RAN/2025[20-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysanjay Chawla, Pr.C.I.T., Sentola, Chaibasa-833201 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Vs. Pan No. Acmpc 6808 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 63

section 263 has been invoked for the following reasons:- "Perusal of records reveals that no analysis of quantitative details has been done by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. Sanjay Chawla Vs PCIT Even no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer as to why there was a loss at the Gross Profit Level.” 3. That

SRI SITA RAM RAI,DHANBAD vs. ITO TDS WARD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 14/RAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.13&14/Ran/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sri Sita Ram Rai……..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 1, New Karmik Nagar, Ism Saraidhella, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 826004. [Pan: Afipr2324B] Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-Dhanbad………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Both The Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S 234E Of The Act Along With Interest Thereupon Levied U/S 220(2) Of The Act. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.13/Ran/2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Deducted Tax At Source (Tds) In Respect Of Certain Payments. As Per The Provisions Of 1

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

TDS return u/s 200A of the Act, fees, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. 4. The ld. counsel, in this respect, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of “Fatehraj Singhvi vs. Union of India” 73 Taxmann.com 252 order dated 26.08.2016, wherein

SRI SITA RAM RAI,DHANBAD vs. ITO, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 13/RAN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.13&14/Ran/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sri Sita Ram Rai……..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 1, New Karmik Nagar, Ism Saraidhella, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 826004. [Pan: Afipr2324B] Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-Dhanbad………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Both The Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S 234E Of The Act Along With Interest Thereupon Levied U/S 220(2) Of The Act. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.13/Ran/2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Deducted Tax At Source (Tds) In Respect Of Certain Payments. As Per The Provisions Of 1

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

TDS return u/s 200A of the Act, fees, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. 4. The ld. counsel, in this respect, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of “Fatehraj Singhvi vs. Union of India” 73 Taxmann.com 252 order dated 26.08.2016, wherein

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)

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 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)

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

RAM KUMAR,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 189/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No. 189/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Ram Kumar,…………………………………………..Appellant C/O. Ram Bilash Prasad Gupta, Gayatri Niwas, Ekta Colony, Majhi Tola, Adityapur, Jamshedpur-831013, Jharkhand [Pan:Anspk0996Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle, Office Road, Jamshedpur-831001, Jharkhand Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 194J

section 194J was Rs.4,68,868/- and professional receipts were Rs.46,88,681/- for FY 2017-18. During the course of survey operation, the assessee received Rs.14,72,295/- as per receipts of his professional fees from his clinic upto 28.02.2018, which is different from the above amount on which TDS was deducted. Professional receipts were Rs.62

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD., DHANBAD vs. NEW SATNAM TRASPORT CO., DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 11/RAN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., New Satman Transport Company, Circle-1, Matkuria, Dhanbad-826001. Vs. Dhanbad. Pan No. Aagfn 7540 N Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 133(6) had been issued to the some of the parties and as they had not responded to the same, an amount of ₹ 2.04 crores had been disallowed. It was a submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 3. We have considered the submissions

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAMAD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 207/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Rajendra Kumar Samad, I.T.O., Dipasai, Kharswan, Saraikela-833216 Ward 2(4), Vs. (Jharkhand) Jamshedpur. Pan No. Fiops 6380 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 234Section 234ASection 89

6. We have considered the facts of the case, provisions of law and the submissions made by both the parties. Since the Assessing Officer in his report has accepted that no interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C is chargeable in this case, the matter ends here and the Assessing Officer is directed to recalculate the interest charged under Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI vs. SPICA PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 228/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 201/201(1A) of the Act by the Assessing Officer on account of non-deduction of TDS on the labour payments. It was a submission that before the ld. CIT(A), it was specifically submitted that there was a survey on the premises of the assessee and in the course of survey, the labour charges had been examined

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI vs. SPICA PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 226/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 201/201(1A) of the Act by the Assessing Officer on account of non-deduction of TDS on the labour payments. It was a submission that before the ld. CIT(A), it was specifically submitted that there was a survey on the premises of the assessee and in the course of survey, the labour charges had been examined

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI vs. SPICA PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 224/RAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 201/201(1A) of the Act by the Assessing Officer on account of non-deduction of TDS on the labour payments. It was a submission that before the ld. CIT(A), it was specifically submitted that there was a survey on the premises of the assessee and in the course of survey, the labour charges had been examined

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI vs. SPICA PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 225/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 201/201(1A) of the Act by the Assessing Officer on account of non-deduction of TDS on the labour payments. It was a submission that before the ld. CIT(A), it was specifically submitted that there was a survey on the premises of the assessee and in the course of survey, the labour charges had been examined

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI vs. SPICA PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 227/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 201/201(1A) of the Act by the Assessing Officer on account of non-deduction of TDS on the labour payments. It was a submission that before the ld. CIT(A), it was specifically submitted that there was a survey on the premises of the assessee and in the course of survey, the labour charges had been examined