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.

2 results for “TDS”+ Section 194A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai380Delhi265Bangalore169Chennai108Nagpur106Kolkata103Chandigarh100Karnataka70Pune59Hyderabad55Jaipur51Ahmedabad47Visakhapatnam28Cochin26Raipur17Cuttack16Panaji14Rajkot14Surat14Amritsar11Jodhpur10Telangana8SC8Indore8Jabalpur5Ranchi4Kerala4Lucknow4Guwahati3Patna3Allahabad3J&K2Dehradun2Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 201(1)2Section 2012TDS2Natural Justice2Limitation/Time-bar2Condonation of Delay2

PRATAP DIAGNOSTIC CENTER,AZAMGARH vs. ITO (TDS),, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7/VNS/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi04 Jul 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj Choubey, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)

3. Because the learned AO has erred in mentioned all the expenses under various heads debited to P&L A/c mentioning without evidence that on these items the TDS should have been made. 4. Because the learned AO has not brought on record the material evidence to prove the default of TDS on the part of the appellant. 5. Because

PRATAP DIAGNOSTIC CENTER,AZAMGARH vs. ITO (TDS), AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8/VNS/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi04 Jul 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj Choubey, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)

3. Because the learned AO has erred in mentioned all the expenses under various heads debited to P&L A/c mentioning without evidence that on these items the TDS should have been made. 4. Because the learned AO has not brought on record the material evidence to prove the default of TDS on the part of the appellant. 5. Because