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 131(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi744Mumbai636Bangalore214Kolkata200Hyderabad186Chennai138Jaipur126Ahmedabad124Chandigarh104Karnataka94Cochin88Pune83Indore68Raipur59Visakhapatnam38Surat37Lucknow30Rajkot19Nagpur17Cuttack16Dehradun14Jodhpur11Guwahati9Patna9Panaji8Ranchi6Allahabad5Amritsar5Varanasi4SC3Agra3Calcutta3Telangana2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)5Section 1325Addition to Income5Undisclosed Income5Section 153A4Section 145(3)4Disallowance4

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

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)

131 of the Act or could have called for information by issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act or by invoking other provisions of the 1961 Act, which the authorities below failed to do so . We have also observed that the total sale of the assessee in the year under consideration

M/S BALAJU 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 632/ALLD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

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)

131 of the Act or could have called for information by issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act or by invoking other provisions of the 1961 Act, which the authorities below failed to do so . We have also observed that the total sale of the assessee in the year under consideration

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)

131 of the Act or could have called for information by issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act or by invoking other provisions of the 1961 Act, which the authorities below failed to do so . We have also observed that the total sale of the assessee in the year under consideration

JCIT(OSD),, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES, (P) LTD., 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 179/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)

131 of the Act or could have called for information by issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act or by invoking other provisions of the 1961 Act, which the authorities below failed to do so . We have also observed that the total sale of the assessee in the year under consideration