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.

21 results for “TDS”+ Section 142clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,153Delhi1,080Bangalore459Hyderabad317Kolkata303Chennai242Jaipur201Ahmedabad192Pune189Chandigarh186Indore154Cochin152Visakhapatnam122Karnataka102Raipur71Rajkot66Cuttack56Surat48Nagpur44Patna42Dehradun40Lucknow34Amritsar32Guwahati28Jodhpur28Agra26Allahabad21Ranchi16Panaji11Jabalpur10Varanasi6Telangana5SC4Calcutta4Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 26318Section 153A16Section 253(3)15Addition to Income15Section 143(3)13Section 13211Undisclosed Income11Section 142(1)8Section 271(1)(c)7TDS

M/S. RITHWIK RK JOINT VENTURE,HYDERABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 107/ALLD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 263

TDS of Rs. 5,37,892/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and scrutiny assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 07.03.2014 by accepting the return of income at Nil. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT on examination of the assessment record, noticed that M/s Ratna Infrastructure Project Private Limited was awarded a contract

M/S RITHWIK RK JOINT VENTURE vs. PR. CIT, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

7
Section 1445
Disallowance4
ITA 99/ALLD/2017[2012-2013]Status: Disposed
ITAT Allahabad
26 Jul 2022
AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 263

TDS of Rs. 5,37,892/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and scrutiny assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 07.03.2014 by accepting the return of income at Nil. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT on examination of the assessment record, noticed that M/s Ratna Infrastructure Project Private Limited was awarded a contract

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

142(1) dated 26th October, 2017. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) and levied the penalty vide order dated 20th November, 2017. There was no response to the notices issued by the AO therefore, the AO proceeded to frame the assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act whereby, the AO made three

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT (OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 154/ALLD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Shri UtkarshFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 40

section 40(a) (ia) as invoked is not correct as the said provision is not applicable at all hence the action of two lower authorities are incorrect. 3. That in any view of the matter the nature of expenditure is marketing expenses incurred by the assessee company is towards reimbursement of payment made by distributors appointed by the company hence

KESARWANI MARKETING(P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 373/ALLD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Shri UtkarshFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 40

section 40(a) (ia) as invoked is not correct as the said provision is not applicable at all hence the action of two lower authorities are incorrect. 3. That in any view of the matter the nature of expenditure is marketing expenses incurred by the assessee company is towards reimbursement of payment made by distributors appointed by the company hence

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 77/ALLD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Shri UtkarshFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

TDS). The assessee made contentions that the additions are not sustainable and need to be deleted. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, by holding that contents of trial balance cannot be disbelieved unless otherwise proved. Reference was drawn to Section 292C, and ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to reconcile the difference. Aggrieved

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. C.IT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 76/ALLD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Shri UtkarshFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

TDS). The assessee made contentions that the additions are not sustainable and need to be deleted. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, by holding that contents of trial balance cannot be disbelieved unless otherwise proved. Reference was drawn to Section 292C, and ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to reconcile the difference. Aggrieved

M/S KESARWANI <ARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT (OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 159/ALLD/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Shri UtkarshFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

TDS). The assessee made contentions that the additions are not sustainable and need to be deleted. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, by holding that contents of trial balance cannot be disbelieved unless otherwise proved. Reference was drawn to Section 292C, and ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to reconcile the difference. Aggrieved

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING(P).LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. CIT(OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 78/ALLD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Shri UtkarshFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

TDS). The assessee made contentions that the additions are not sustainable and need to be deleted. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, by holding that contents of trial balance cannot be disbelieved unless otherwise proved. Reference was drawn to Section 292C, and ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to reconcile the difference. Aggrieved

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)

142(1) of the 1961 Act, while the additions have been made based on seized material found during the course of Search and Seizure operations conducted by Revenue on 27th August 2009 , u/s 132(1) of the 1961 Act. The common legal jurisdictional ground raised by assessee in all these appeals is that the whole assessment proceedings conducted by Revenue

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)

142(1) of the 1961 Act, while the additions have been made based on seized material found during the course of Search and Seizure operations conducted by Revenue on 27th August 2009 , u/s 132(1) of the 1961 Act. The common legal jurisdictional ground raised by assessee in all these appeals is that the whole assessment proceedings conducted by Revenue

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)

142(1) of the 1961 Act, while the additions have been made based on seized material found during the course of Search and Seizure operations conducted by Revenue on 27th August 2009 , u/s 132(1) of the 1961 Act. The common legal jurisdictional ground raised by assessee in all these appeals is that the whole assessment proceedings conducted by Revenue

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)

142(1) of the 1961 Act, while the additions have been made based on seized material found during the course of Search and Seizure operations conducted by Revenue on 27th August 2009 , u/s 132(1) of the 1961 Act. The common legal jurisdictional ground raised by assessee in all these appeals is that the whole assessment proceedings conducted by Revenue

THE HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION,ALLAHABAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 24/ALLD/2021[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: N.A.

For Appellant: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal, CA along with Shri Satya Dheer Singh JadaunFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 144

142(1) of the 1961 Act, vide acknowledgement no. 276502040231219 dated 23.12.2019 , voluntarily declaring income of Rs. 88,17,990/- in the return of income filed with Revenue, the constituent of returned income being income from Rent to the tune of Rs. 6,70,310/- ( after claiming deduction of 30% under Section 24(a) ) and income from bank interest

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)

142(1) were issued by Revenue from time to time and it is claimed by Revenue that they were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed from the Assessee’s Annual Report 2012 vide note no. 21 , that the assessee has claimed prior period adjustment of Rs.73.02 lacs. On being asked

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

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)

142(1) were issued by Revenue from time to time and it is claimed by Revenue that they were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed from the Assessee’s Annual Report 2012 vide note no. 21 , that the assessee has claimed prior period adjustment of Rs.73.02 lacs. On being asked

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)

142(1) were issued by Revenue from time to time and it is claimed by Revenue that they were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed from the Assessee’s Annual Report 2012 vide note no. 21 , that the assessee has claimed prior period adjustment of Rs.73.02 lacs. On being asked

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S. J.P.YADAV , SONEBHADRA

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

ITA 319/ALLD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad11 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Shukla,C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 194C

142(1) of the 1961 Act, which could not be complied with by the assessee, and the AO did not give any further opportunity to the assessee and passed an ex-parte reassessment order under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. During the course of appellate proceedings before ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that since

DEEPAK AUTO SALES KUNDA PRATAPGARH,PRATAPGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER PRATAPGARH, PRATAPGARH

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

ITA 69/ALLD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

142(1) along with questionnaire was also issued. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act, determining total income of the assessee at Rs.2,70,75,760/- by making addition of Rs.2,70,75,740/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and Rs.19.25 on account

LATE SRI ZIA USMANI THROUGH L/H AND WIFE SMT. MEHVISH USMANI,ALLAHABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/ALLD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 142(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1B) the Assessing Officer is required to record the satisfaction that the penalty proceedings are separately initiated. Thus at the time of recording the satisfaction it is not required on the part of the Assessing Officer to specify any charge. He has further contended that it is a clear case of failure on the part of the assessee