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.

25,893 results for “TDS”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,976Delhi5,477Bangalore2,647Chennai2,237Kolkata1,851Pune1,083Patna747Ahmedabad709Cochin587Hyderabad580Jaipur444Karnataka443Indore398Chandigarh374Nagpur339Raipur304Surat204Visakhapatnam177Rajkot165Lucknow160Cuttack139Jodhpur109Amritsar104Ranchi85Panaji83Jabalpur72Telangana68Agra65Dehradun65Guwahati56Varanasi26Allahabad26SC25Calcutta21Kerala17Rajasthan6Himachal Pradesh6J&K5Punjab & Haryana5Orissa4Uttarakhand2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income61Disallowance44Section 143(3)41TDS41Section 206C35Section 25032Section 14A29Deduction29Section 153A26Section 14824Section 80I

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL CO. PVT LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 541/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

TDS Deducted) AYLPA4773H 460.000 2 AT Electro Mechenical (TDS Deducted) BTLPS5343D 650,000 3 Cheian Valjibhai Maniya(TDS Deducted) CNVPM4860Q

Showing 1–20 of 25,893 · Page 1 of 1,295

...
21
Section 234E20

DCIT, CIR-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2640/KOL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Kolkata........................………..…..........Appellant Vs. M/S. The Jute Corporation Of India Ltd...................................................…………...................Respondent 15N, Hudco Building Nellie Sengupta Sarani Kolkata – 700 087 [Pan : Aabct 8820 B] Appearances By: Shri Biswajit Syam, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri T.P. Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 16Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 8Th, 2021 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-, Kz :- This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 26/08/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’).

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194ISection 250Section 40

deduction of TDS. The appellant had not deducted TDS on payments amounting to Rs. deduction of TDS. The appellant had not deducted

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 282/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

deducted TDS on payments made to subcontractors, Shankarapally, but failed to deduct TDS on remaining unpaid amount of Rs. 19,66,000/-, which

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 281/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

deducted TDS on payments made to subcontractors, Shankarapally, but failed to deduct TDS on remaining unpaid amount of Rs. 19,66,000/-, which

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 280/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

deducted TDS on payments made to subcontractors, Shankarapally, but failed to deduct TDS on remaining unpaid amount of Rs. 19,66,000/-, which

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

TDS was deducted as per provisions of the Act. It is mentioned that the threshold limit of deducting TDS u/s 194C

IL & FS ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED(FORMERLY MAYTAS INFRA LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, HYDERABAD

ITA 1886/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09
Section 139(5)Section 194ASection 194CSection 37Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 69C

TDS\nwas already deducted, however, disallowed the transactions on\nwhich TDS is not deducted, amounting to Rs.1,55,48,713/- and\ntransactions

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. IL & FS ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LIMITED , HYDERABAD

ITA 129/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09
Section 139(5)Section 194ASection 194CSection 37Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 69C

TDS\nwas already deducted, however, disallowed the transactions on\nwhich TDS is not deducted, amounting to Rs.1,55,48,713/- and\ntransactions

ASHOKKUMAR PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,PORBANDAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appear of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.83/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamca5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194CSection 263Section 40

deducted TDS of Rs.10,10,408/-, on Labour expenses of Rs. 4,93,22,122/-. TDS was deducted & paid ASHOKKUMAR

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

deduction of TDS and short deduction of TDS with respect to the payments mentioned above. - On payments totalling to Rs. 62,04,815/- TDS

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

deduction of TDS and short deduction of TDS with respect to the payments mentioned above. - On payments totalling to Rs. 62,04,815/- TDS

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

deduction of TDS and short deduction of TDS with respect to the payments mentioned above. - On payments totalling to Rs. 62,04,815/- TDS

LOTUS ENERGY (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT RG 8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4355/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4355/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S Lotus Energy (India) Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Ltd., Tax- Range 8, V. 409, Laxmi Plaza, 2 Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Laxmi Industrial Estate, M.K. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Mumbai -400053. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcl6119K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 40

TDS has been deducted @ 10.20% whereas the actual TDS should have been deducted @ 22.44%: a. As per your opinion TDS

M.V.A.SEETHARAMA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 795/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.795/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mr. M.V.A. Seetharama Raju, Tax, Flat No.32, Rishikesh Apartments, Non-Corporate Circle-2, 38, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. Pan: Agopr 1931M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. I.P.Roopa, JCIT
Section 139Section 192Section 201Section 40

TDS ought to have been deducted @ 10%, it could be seen the assessee by deducting TDS @ 2% has deducted tax only

DCIT CC 7(2).MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 619/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-2021

For Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal
Section 14ASection 194ASection 40

TDS deducted and withholding tax. In other words the TDS deducted and withholding tax. In other words the TDS deducted

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with

ITA/194/2004HC Delhi01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271

deduct TDS or deposit TDS that has been deducted. The said provision reads as under: “271-C. Penalty for failure

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 210/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

deducted TDS u/s 192. The ITO(TDS) recomputed the taxable income. The income tax officer (TDS) denied deduction u/s 80C on the contributions

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 212/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

deducted TDS u/s 192. The ITO(TDS) recomputed the taxable income. The income tax officer (TDS) denied deduction u/s 80C on the contributions

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

deducted TDS u/s 192. The ITO(TDS) recomputed the taxable income. The income tax officer (TDS) denied deduction u/s 80C on the contributions

EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDARIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (TDS) KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 209/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80C

deducted TDS u/s 192. The ITO(TDS) recomputed the taxable income. The income tax officer (TDS) denied deduction u/s 80C on the contributions