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.

6 results for “TDS”+ Section 194Qclear

Sorted by relevance

Jodhpur22 Delhi19 Chandigarh12 Mumbai7 Visakhapatnam6 Jaipur5 Bangalore3 Ahmedabad2 Kolkata2 Lucknow2 Hyderabad1 Chennai1 Pune1 Rajkot1 Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)13 Section 1996 TDS6 Section 194Q4 Section 1484 Section 139(9)3 Section 148A3 Section 7(1)(b)2 Section 1472 Deduction

SRI LAKSHMI GENERAL STORES,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 478/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 194QSection 199Section 7(1)(b)

TDS under Section 194Q on sale proceeds and also deducted TDS in respect of delayed payment of the same. The assessee

SRI LAKSHMI GENERAL STORES,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 479/VIZ/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed

2

ITAT Visakhapatnam

29 Oct 2025

AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 194QSection 199Section 7(1)(b)

TDS under Section 194Q on sale proceeds and also deducted TDS in respect of delayed payment of the same. The assessee

SUBBA REDDY MAREDDY,GUNTUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Nov 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.96/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Subba Reddy Mareddy V. Ito - Ward-1(1) Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 25-2-56 Prop Amarnath Chillies Traders Opp Mastan Durga Ragraharam Guntur – 522004, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Alfpm2380K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 199

section 194Q & 194A of the Act and therefore pleaded that the grounds raised by the assessee may be allowed. The Ld. AR further submitted that on identical facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Tribunal has decided the case in favour of the assessee in the case of Thota Venkateswarlu vs. ITO in ITA No. 290/Viz/2024 (AY 2023-24), dated

KOTI NARASIMHA SRINIVAS VUKKURTHI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 333/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.333/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1(1) Koti Narasimha Srinivas Vukkurthi C/O. M.V. Prasad, Ca Income Tax Office First Floor Cr Buildings, Kannavari Thota Opposite Prasad & Co. Contractors Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh D.No. 6-3-871 Snehalata, Greenlands Road Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500016 [Pan: Admpv6385Q] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194QSection 199

TDS to Rs. 10,271/- as against Rs.48,593/- claimed in the return of income. 3. The learned ADDL/JCIT(Appeals) erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the AO by invoking the provisions of section 199 and Rule 37BA(2) of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw

NATA RAJA TRADERS,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 270/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.270/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23) Nata Raja Traders, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Aaefn2642P Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. A. Aruna, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. A. Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 194QSection 249(2)

section 194Q of the Act and 194A of the Act for delayed payments, if any. The assessee had mentioned these details in column 14(IV) of the P & L Account. However, while processing the assessee’s return of income, the Ld. AO / CPC disallowed the assessee’s claim of TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DODDI ROOPA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 413/VIZ/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.413/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Doddi Roopa, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Atfpr7237N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

TDS) on the payments made to M/s. A.K. Capital Enterprises, as against the purchases made during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the AO, based on his conviction that 4 DCIT vs. Smt. Doddi Roopa the assessee has failed to justify the purchases of Rs. 4,99,65,247/-, passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 29/03/2023