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.

60 results for “TDS”+ Section 11(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,589Mumbai4,580Bangalore2,355Chennai1,680Pune1,241Kolkata1,186Ahmedabad890Hyderabad824Indore702Jaipur536Chandigarh456Raipur446Cochin427Karnataka308Nagpur306Visakhapatnam289Surat270Cuttack246Rajkot193Lucknow150Amritsar116Jabalpur103Ranchi97Jodhpur86Dehradun76Agra73Patna62Allahabad60Panaji59Guwahati55Telangana44SC21Varanasi14Calcutta13Kerala13Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Punjab & Haryana3J&K3Uttarakhand3Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

TDS38Section 234E36Addition to Income36Penalty27Section 200A(1)24Section 200A24Section 143(3)20Section 26320Section 153A16Section 271(1)(c)

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 20/ALLD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253(3)

11,18,900/- vide his assessment order dated 27.03.2015. A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 The assessee company filed a petition for Rectification u/s 154 of the Act for rectification of mistake apparent from record i.e. set off of current year losses from the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation not allowed by the AO. while computing the taxable income

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3

16
Section 253(3)15
Charitable Trust12

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

ITA 21/ALLD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253(3)

11,18,900/- vide his assessment order dated 27.03.2015. A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 The assessee company filed a petition for Rectification u/s 154 of the Act for rectification of mistake apparent from record i.e. set off of current year losses from the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation not allowed by the AO. while computing the taxable income

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) , ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 19/ALLD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253(3)

11,18,900/- vide his assessment order dated 27.03.2015. A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 The assessee company filed a petition for Rectification u/s 154 of the Act for rectification of mistake apparent from record i.e. set off of current year losses from the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation not allowed by the AO. while computing the taxable income

M/S. SUBHASH STONE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NAINITAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 141/ALLD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad19 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

TDS Rs.1,19,950/- e) Disallowance of Proportionate Expenses Rs.1,55,700/- ----------------- Total Rs. 6,26,650/- 5 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s Subhash Stone Industries Private Limited (Formerly Rajluxmi Stone Crushers Private Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad ------------------- Hence, an addition of Rs. 6,26,650/- was made by the AO to the income

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), ALLAHABAD vs. MONAD INFRASOLUTION LIMITED, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose and the Cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 62/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, V. Monad Infrasolution Limited, Ward-2(2), Allahabad C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Alld/2021 In Assessment Year: 2015-16 Monad Infrasolution Limited, V. Income Tax Officer, C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Ward-2(2), Allahabad Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Rabin Chaudhuri, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Bansal, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

11…. Section 145(3) of the Act lays down that the Assessing Officer can proceed to make assessment to the best of his judgment under section 144 of the Act only in the event of not being satisfied with the correctness of the accounts produced by the assessee. In the instant case the Assessing Officer has not rejected the books

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 226/ALLD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 225/ALLD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CPC (TDS) , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 218/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 217/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 227/ALLD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 224/ALLD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 228/ALLD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 221/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 219/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 220/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 222/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 223/ALLD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 637/ALLD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Deora Electric Works V. The Jcit 58-A, Sardar Patel Marg Range – I Allahabad Allahabad Pan:Aadfd7479B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250

TDS, it was submitted that the same was not made according to the bonafide belief that tax deduction was not required for the amounts below Rs.50,000/-. Regarding the payments disallowable under section 40A(3) of the Act, it was submitted that these were made after office hours at various sites. Regarding the difference in amount of bank guarantee

M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT,CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

ITA 633/ALLD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Namita S. Pandey, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

11 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed by assessee with tribunal in ITA no. 152/Alld./2013 for ay: 2009-10, as not being pressed. We order accordingly. 14. Now in cross appeals filed by Assessee as well by Revenue, the issue in dispute vide ground of appeal number 4 to 7 in assessee’s appeal and ground

M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES(P).LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT. (0SD), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

ITA 152/ALLD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Namita S. Pandey, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

11 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed by assessee with tribunal in ITA no. 152/Alld./2013 for ay: 2009-10, as not being pressed. We order accordingly. 14. Now in cross appeals filed by Assessee as well by Revenue, the issue in dispute vide ground of appeal number 4 to 7 in assessee’s appeal and ground