Search: disallowance | 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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai557 Kolkata421 Delhi404 Chennai205 Bangalore193 Ahmedabad68 Hyderabad62 Indore36 Jaipur35 Raipur33 Rajkot31 Panaji17 Pune17 Cuttack16 Karnataka15 Nagpur15 Surat15 Amritsar14 Visakhapatnam13 Cochin13 Chandigarh11 Ranchi10 Lucknow10 Allahabad9 Guwahati9 Kerala7 Calcutta7 Patna7 Dehradun5 Jodhpur4 Agra3 Jabalpur3 SC3 Telangana2 Rajasthan1 Uttarakhand1 Varanasi1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 194C19 Section 4017 Addition to Income10 TDS6 Disallowance5 Deduction5 Section 143(3)4 Section 32(2)2 Section 31(1)2 Section 32(1)

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

Section 194C of the Act was deducted. The Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed the entire amount under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added

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: Disposed

2

ITAT Ranchi

09 Jun 2025

AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194CSection 40

disallowance at all as no TDS was liable to be made on such payments. For this proposition, the ld. AR placed reliance upon the decisions of Coordinate Benches this Tribunal, Kolkata Benches in the case of ITO Vs M/s Kwality Construction in ITA No. 18/Kol/2014 dated 14/10/2016, decision in the case of ACIT Vs Dilip Saha in ITA No. 582/Kol/2014

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

disallowance at all as no TDS was liable to be made on such payments. For this proposition, the ld. AR placed reliance upon the decisions of Coordinate Benches this Tribunal, Kolkata Benches in the case of ITO Vs M/s Kwality Construction in ITA No. 18/Kol/2014 dated 14/10/2016, decision in the case of ACIT Vs Dilip Saha in ITA No. 582/Kol/2014

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

disallowance at all as no TDS was liable to be made on such payments. For this proposition, the ld. AR placed reliance upon the decisions of Coordinate Benches this Tribunal, Kolkata Benches in the case of ITO Vs M/s Kwality Construction in ITA No. 18/Kol/2014 dated 14/10/2016, decision in the case of ACIT Vs Dilip Saha in ITA No. 582/Kol/2014

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

section 40(a)(ia) u/s 194C r.w.s. 206AA of the income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the ld. AO disallowed such

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

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

section 194C of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, he disallowed both the items. 11. On due consideration of the facts

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)

disallowance made by the ld. AO to Rs. 22,53,48,000/- on the ground that TDS was not deducted which was a violation of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The contention of the ld. AR, in this regard is that in the month of November, 2013 an audit objection was raised in respect

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)

disallowance made by the ld. AO to Rs. 22,53,48,000/- on the ground that TDS was not deducted which was a violation of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The contention of the ld. AR, in this regard is that in the month of November, 2013 an audit objection was raised in respect