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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Section 90(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,685Delhi1,561Bangalore684Chennai522Kolkata394Cochin268Hyderabad234Ahmedabad197Jaipur164Indore161Raipur152Karnataka126Chandigarh89Pune86Nagpur49Lucknow46Surat42Visakhapatnam27Rajkot26Guwahati24Ranchi20Jodhpur17Telangana13Cuttack13SC11Amritsar9Patna8Dehradun6Agra5Panaji3Calcutta2Punjab & Haryana2Jabalpur2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 1954Section 1544Section 143(1)4TDS4Addition to Income4Section 403Section 93Section 903Deduction3Disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 415/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9

1), Sections 4, 5, 9, 90, 91 as well as the provisions of DTAA are also relevant, while applying tax deduction at source provisions. Reference to ITO(TDS

ANKITA PALIWAL,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 195/AGR/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: Disposed
3
Double Taxation/DTAA2
ITAT Agra
06 Feb 2025

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 90

TDS was deducted of Rs. 2,82,020/- in USA. The assessee is resident in India. The assessee filed its return of income within time allowed u/s. 139(1) wherein, the global income was disclosed and due credit of tax paid in USA was also deducted in view of the provisions of section 90

AL HAMD AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,ALIGARH vs. DC/ACIT, ALIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 63/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 40

1. Because The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,85,70,973 being the commission paid to foreign agents. 2. Because the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice. the appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify or substitute any or all the grounds of appeal at any appropriate

SHYAM SINGH YADAV,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(2), GWL, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 340/AGR/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Agra05 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shyam Singh Yadav, Vs. Ito, Opp. Doordarshan Kendra, Ward-2(2), Thatipur Gaon, Morar, Gwalior, Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abhpy8702B Assessee By : Shri S. C. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shalenndra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2025

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shalenndra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 24Section 69A

1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in passing an ex parte order without providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present his case despite being aware of the appellant's circumstances, existence of sufficient grounds and evidence intended to be placed on record. 2. That the CIT(A) has erroneously confirmed the addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 144Section 271D

section 43B. Hence, the assessee gets a relief of Rs 13,90,285. 10.8 Ground No 4: That the A.O. was wrong in disallowing depreciation of Rs.6784622 /- stating non- verification while the case was completed u/s 144. From the submissions made by the assessee, particularly, Page No. 14 of PB, it is seen that depreciation amounting to Rs.6784622 /- has already