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(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai699Delhi649Kolkata436Bangalore297Chennai190Jaipur85Ahmedabad70Hyderabad60Indore51Karnataka50Raipur38Rajkot29Pune26Cochin25Nagpur23Amritsar23Jodhpur22Chandigarh20Patna19Surat16Guwahati12Cuttack12Visakhapatnam11Panaji11Lucknow9Ranchi9Kerala8Jabalpur8Allahabad8Telangana7Calcutta6Agra5SC5Dehradun4Rajasthan2Gauhati1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 194C10Section 2608Section 194I8Section 2637Deduction6Section 201(1)5TDS5Section 12A3Section 2013Section 194J

M\S.CHENNAKESAVA VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWAD

The Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/33/2000HC Telangana27 Aug 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 194CSection 197(1)Section 201

Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” To briefly state the facts – the appellant was in the process of setting up an Oil Refinery at Vadinar, District- Jamnagar. For the purpose, the appellant entered into three different agreements with Messrs. Essar Projects Limited; viz., [1] for supply of Indian sources equipments & materials; [2] for labour-cum-erections; and [3

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. Aditya Music (India) Pvt.Ltd.,

ITTA/482/2012HC Telangana06 Aug 2013
Section 194C
3
Penalty2
Section 194I
Section 201(1)
Section 271C

3 under Section 194C of the Act at the rate of 2%. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Parchuru

ITTA/480/2012HC Telangana02 Aug 2013
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)Section 271C

3 under Section 194C of the Act at the rate of 2%. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle

Mr. Vasamsetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1

Appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/13/2025HC Telangana19 Mar 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 12ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 263

Section 12A. The CIT (TDS), by order dated 22.03.2024, reached to the conclusion that the AO had not properly conducted the inquiry and remanded the matter to the AO for conducting proper inquiry into all the aspects, which could not have been halted by the ITAT. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced at bar and perused the orders

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market committee,

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/422/2011HC Telangana17 Nov 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 192Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 28Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS. 2. While admitting the matter following questions were framed:- 1. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the payment made by the assessee in form of transmission/ wheeling/ SLDC charges were not liable to be deducted at source either under Section 194J or 194C of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding -2- that

Commissioner of Income tax-V, vs. M/s. INTRACK INC,

ITTA/590/2013HC Telangana06 Dec 2013
Section 260

3. The substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in all these appeals is whether, the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, which is given effect from 01.04.2010 is retrospective in nature. 4. Prior to the amendment, the said provision read as under:- Section 40(a)(ia) : any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Mesmer Technologies Ltd

The appeals are allowed in part

ITTA/673/2016HC Telangana15 Dec 2016

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,M.S.K.JAISWAL

Section 12ASection 194JSection 260Section 260A

3. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in not holding that the provisions of section 194J are not applicable to the facts and consequently there is no need to deduct any tax at source on the facts and circumstances of the case? 4. Without prejudice whether the Tribunal erred in law in not holding M/s KIADB being an entity registered