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.

3 results for “TDS”+ Section 149(4)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi424Mumbai365Bangalore253Chennai113Hyderabad107Karnataka97Chandigarh88Cochin73Raipur59Ahmedabad53Kolkata51Jaipur51Pune32Lucknow27Agra18Cuttack12Indore11Guwahati9Amritsar8Rajkot8Nagpur8Kerala5Jodhpur5Surat5Visakhapatnam4Allahabad3Ranchi3Patna2SC2Varanasi2Rajasthan1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 14812Section 143(3)5Section 153A4Addition to Income3Section 2502Section 12Reassessment2Reopening of Assessment2TDS2Limitation/Time-bar

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

b) Disallowance of Plant Maintenance Rs. 1,50,000/- c) Disallowance on account of donation paid Rs. 51,000/- d) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of 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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS, ALLAHABAD

2

In the result, both appeals i

ITA 101/ALLD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

b. In the aforesaid reasons, the receipt as per the ld. AO was Rs.7,54,92,401/- and as a result, the ld. AO had incorrectly deducted the amount of contract receipts from this figure to arrive at a concealment of Rs.1,99,86,669/-. 3.1 Thus, the ld. AO had come to a wrong conclusion, without verifying the trading

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

ITA 99/ALLD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

b. In the aforesaid reasons, the receipt as per the ld. AO was Rs.7,54,92,401/- and as a result, the ld. AO had incorrectly deducted the amount of contract receipts from this figure to arrive at a concealment of Rs.1,99,86,669/-. 3.1 Thus, the ld. AO had come to a wrong conclusion, without verifying the trading