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.

11 results for “TDS”+ Section 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi959Mumbai793Patna473Bangalore414Pune379Cochin340Chennai301Kolkata194Indore188Ahmedabad167Hyderabad152Karnataka120Chandigarh110Jaipur95Raipur84Visakhapatnam74Nagpur53Dehradun48Surat39Rajkot36Lucknow32Jabalpur28Jodhpur23Amritsar18Guwahati16Agra16Cuttack12Allahabad11Telangana10Panaji5SC4Varanasi4Calcutta3Himachal Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana2Ranchi2J&K1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 15419Section 253(3)15Rectification u/s 1548TDS7Section 143(3)6Section 272A(2)(k)5Section 142(1)5Penalty5Section 12A3Section 143

RAJENDRA PD. GUPTA,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 378/ALLD/2014[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad24 Jan 2022AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoshri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 1993-94

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma

TDS of Rs. 20,789/- , under the old regime when GIR No. existed (impugned ay: 1993- 94) and no computerized record is available with department for which the Revenue is not able to give credit for such prepaid taxes , but these facts are appearing in income-tax computation form issued by Revenue, suffice would be for us to remind Revenue

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OFFICE, MINES DIVISION, ALLAHABAD,ALLAHABAD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), ALLAHABAD RANGE, ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 181/ALLD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad
3
Condonation of Delay3
02 Dec 2020
AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 272A(2)(k)

TDS Statement Form 26Q and as such it has been requested that the present proceedings may kindly be dropped after making appropriate rectification of mistake in the penalty order in exercise of powers conferred under Section 154

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OFFICE, MINES DIVISION, ALLAHABAD,ALLAHABAD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), ALLAHABAD RANGE, ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 182/ALLD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 272A(2)(k)

TDS Statement Form 26Q and as such it has been requested that the present proceedings may kindly be dropped after making appropriate rectification of mistake in the penalty order in exercise of powers conferred under Section 154

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,ALLAHABAD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), , ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 179/ALLD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 272A(2)(k)

TDS Statement Form 26Q and as such it has been requested that the present proceedings may kindly be dropped after making appropriate rectification of mistake in the penalty order in exercise of powers conferred under Section 154

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OFFICE, MINES DIVISION,ALLAHABAD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), ALLAHABAD RANGE, ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 180/ALLD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 272A(2)(k)

TDS Statement Form 26Q and as such it has been requested that the present proceedings may kindly be dropped after making appropriate rectification of mistake in the penalty order in exercise of powers conferred under Section 154

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OFFICE, MINES DIVISION, ALLAHABAD,ALLAHABAD vs. JCIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 178/ALLD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 272A(2)(k)

TDS Statement Form 26Q and as such it has been requested that the present proceedings may kindly be dropped after making appropriate rectification of mistake in the penalty order in exercise of powers conferred under Section 154

SMT. VIJAY LUXMI GUPTA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI MUKESH GUPTA),ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/ALLD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad16 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 143Section 154

154 of the Act. The assessee challenged the said order of the Assessing Officer by filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) however, could not succeed. 3. Before the Tribunal, the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has declared the income on account of commission income received from M/s Unitech Wireless (East) Pvt. Ltd., which

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

Section 24(a) ) and income from bank interest to the tune of Rs. 81,47,680/- which the assessee has earned on FDR maintained with Bank and interest earned on saving bank account. The assessee also paid self assessment tax to the tune of Rs. 35,47,400/- , while filing the aforesaid return of income for ay: 2017-18. There

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)

154 was rejected. During the appellate proceedings AR was fair enough to concede on this issue. However, AR made two requests - one, that the current years losses and depreciation should be allowed; and second that due to error of omission, amount of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation was taken as Rs. 15,43,28,383/- instead

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)

154 was rejected. During the appellate proceedings AR was fair enough to concede on this issue. However, AR made two requests - one, that the current years losses and depreciation should be allowed; and second that due to error of omission, amount of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation was taken as Rs. 15,43,28,383/- instead

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)

154 was rejected. During the appellate proceedings AR was fair enough to concede on this issue. However, AR made two requests - one, that the current years losses and depreciation should be allowed; and second that due to error of omission, amount of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation was taken as Rs. 15,43,28,383/- instead