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 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi972Mumbai843Patna473Bangalore416Pune339Cochin327Chennai308Kolkata199Indore185Ahmedabad129Hyderabad121Karnataka120Jaipur87Chandigarh86Raipur82Nagpur54Visakhapatnam50Lucknow39Surat39Dehradun32Rajkot31Jabalpur28Agra17Jodhpur16Amritsar16Telangana10Guwahati8Cuttack7Allahabad5Panaji5SC4Varanasi4Calcutta3Punjab & Haryana2Himachal Pradesh2J&K1Ranchi1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 253(3)15Section 143(3)6Section 142(1)5Section 12A3Section 1543Condonation of Delay3Rectification u/s 1543

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

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