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.

9 results for “TDS”+ Section 144clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai685Delhi549Bangalore300Kolkata207Chennai179Hyderabad169Ahmedabad157Pune144Jaipur121Cochin119Karnataka114Raipur110Chandigarh70Indore60Surat56Visakhapatnam42Lucknow38Rajkot30Amritsar26Patna25Agra18Cuttack16Nagpur16Jodhpur15Jabalpur14Allahabad9Guwahati8Panaji7SC5Telangana5Varanasi5Calcutta3Dehradun3Ranchi2Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)16Section 142(1)9Section 1448Section 143(2)8Section 1475Penalty5Addition to Income5Section 2503Section 2713Section 143(3)

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

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act whereby, the AO made three additions on account (i) Current liabilities, (ii) Commission expenses and (iii) Consultancy fees. Accordingly, the AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 25,40,01,710/- as against the return of income of ITA No. 62/ALLD/2020 and C.O. No. 01/ALLD/2021 (arising

3
TDS3
Reopening of Assessment2

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

TDS has been deducted on the payments made to labour contractors u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Addition of Rs. 11,37,000/-“ 5. Aggrieved by reassessment order dated 22.11.2017 passed by AO u/s 147 read with Section 144

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

TDS) to the tune of Rs. 4,20,913/- in the aforesaid return of income filed by assessee with the Revenue, on 23.12.2019. The Revenue accepted returned income of Rs. 88,17,990/- and the assessment was framed by the AO assessing income at Rs. 88,17,990/- , vide assessment order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s 144

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 2(1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 52/ALLD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Yogeshwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

144 for the A.Y. 2009-10, 143(3) for the A.Y. 2011-12 and the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for the A.Y. 2009-10, has dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. 2. Aggrieved with the dismissal of the said appeals, the assessee has come before us in appeal yet again. The grounds of appeal preferred

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 53/ALLD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Yogeshwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

144 for the A.Y. 2009-10, 143(3) for the A.Y. 2011-12 and the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for the A.Y. 2009-10, has dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. 2. Aggrieved with the dismissal of the said appeals, the assessee has come before us in appeal yet again. The grounds of appeal preferred

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT CIR.-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 54/ALLD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Yogeshwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

144 for the A.Y. 2009-10, 143(3) for the A.Y. 2011-12 and the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for the A.Y. 2009-10, has dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. 2. Aggrieved with the dismissal of the said appeals, the assessee has come before us in appeal yet again. The grounds of appeal preferred

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

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 of TDS

M/SPANDEY TRANSPORT CO.,SONEBHADRA vs. ITO,, MIRZAPUR

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

ITA 12/ALLD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Praveen GodboleFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Singh, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234Section 292B

144 of the Act, by applying some reasonable and proper criteria. So far as the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of the income, it is a natural consequence while framing the assessment after invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act. However, the mere rejection of the books of account would not is so facto result

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

TDS. Thus the Assessing Officer accepted the contract receipt as well as gross receipt from garment business of Rs.12,13,244/- and Rs.8,35,480/- respectively. After considering the source of deposit to the extent of contract receipt and garment business the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.7,93,036/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account