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.

39 results for “TDS”+ Section 17(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,521Mumbai3,521Bangalore1,832Chennai1,288Kolkata812Hyderabad710Pune699Ahmedabad647Jaipur426Indore376Chandigarh355Cochin314Raipur266Karnataka264Visakhapatnam223Surat205Cuttack179Nagpur170Rajkot142Lucknow95Amritsar81Dehradun59Ranchi58Guwahati43Panaji42Jodhpur42Telangana41Patna40Allahabad39Agra38Jabalpur38SC18Kerala12Varanasi11Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan6Calcutta6Punjab & Haryana4Uttarakhand3Orissa1Gauhati1J&K1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)19Section 15419Addition to Income19Section 26318TDS17Section 153A16Section 271(1)(c)16Section 253(3)15Section 194C13Section 132

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)

2) of the 1961 Act. The assessee submitted credit notes issued to different persons , and submitted before the AO that such rebate is attributable to the promptness of payments and also to performance. The AO observed that these credit notes referred to payments as ‘Commission’. The AO further observed that the assessee has not deducted income-tax at source

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

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

11
Undisclosed Income11
Penalty10

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)

2) of the 1961 Act. The assessee submitted credit notes issued to different persons , and submitted before the AO that such rebate is attributable to the promptness of payments and also to performance. The AO observed that these credit notes referred to payments as ‘Commission’. The AO further observed that the assessee has not deducted income-tax at source

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)

2) of the 1961 Act. The assessee submitted credit notes issued to different persons , and submitted before the AO that such rebate is attributable to the promptness of payments and also to performance. The AO observed that these credit notes referred to payments as ‘Commission’. The AO further observed that the assessee has not deducted income-tax at source

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

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

ITA 99/ALLD/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Jul 2022AY 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 however, this fact is also required to be verified from the record. 11. The next issue raised by the Pr. CIT was regarding bank guarantee of Rs. 10 Crore and advance mobilization of 2% of the contract value as well as additional mobilization advance of Rs. 3 Crore and noted that these amounts does not find place

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 however, this fact is also required to be verified from the record. 11. The next issue raised by the Pr. CIT was regarding bank guarantee of Rs. 10 Crore and advance mobilization of 2% of the contract value as well as additional mobilization advance of Rs. 3 Crore and noted that these amounts does not find place

SECRETARY, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH,ALLAHABAD vs. IT OFFICER, T.D.S., ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 10/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Ito (Tds), V. Public Service Commission 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, (Lok Sewa Aayog), Allahabad,Up Uttar Pradesh, Stanley Road, Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Secretary, V. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,Up Stanley Road Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Adv
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201

17,646/- under the head "Rent & Other Charges" as against Rs. 2,59,990/- as per the assessment order, whereas in the remand report the Assessing Officer had admitted that no tax was deductible and payment was towards House Tax. 8. Without Prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming that tax was deductible @20%, by applying

SECRETARY, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH,ALLAHABAD vs. IT OFFICER, T.D.S., ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 11/ALLD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Ito (Tds), V. Public Service Commission 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, (Lok Sewa Aayog), Allahabad,Up Uttar Pradesh, Stanley Road, Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Secretary, V. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,Up Stanley Road Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Adv
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201

17,646/- under the head "Rent & Other Charges" as against Rs. 2,59,990/- as per the assessment order, whereas in the remand report the Assessing Officer had admitted that no tax was deductible and payment was towards House Tax. 8. Without Prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming that tax was deductible @20%, by applying

ITO(TDS),, ALLAHABAD vs. LOK SEWA AYOG,, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 330/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Ito (Tds), V. Public Service Commission 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, (Lok Sewa Aayog), Allahabad,Up Uttar Pradesh, Stanley Road, Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Secretary, V. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,Up Stanley Road Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Adv
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201

17,646/- under the head "Rent & Other Charges" as against Rs. 2,59,990/- as per the assessment order, whereas in the remand report the Assessing Officer had admitted that no tax was deductible and payment was towards House Tax. 8. Without Prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming that tax was deductible @20%, by applying

ITO(TDS),, ALLAHABAD vs. LOK SEWA AYOG,, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 329/ALLD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Ito (Tds), V. Public Service Commission 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, (Lok Sewa Aayog), Allahabad,Up Uttar Pradesh, Stanley Road, Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Secretary, V. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,Up Stanley Road Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Adv
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201

17,646/- under the head "Rent & Other Charges" as against Rs. 2,59,990/- as per the assessment order, whereas in the remand report the Assessing Officer had admitted that no tax was deductible and payment was towards House Tax. 8. Without Prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming that tax was deductible @20%, by applying

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

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

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 Crushers Private Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad ------------------- Hence, an addition of Rs. 6,26,650/- was made by the AO to the income

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

17,880/- . The TDS credit was denied due to the reason that as per the Form No. 26AS the TDS was not in the name of assessee but it was in the name of deceased husband, who die on 11.03.2009. The assessee filed an 3 application u/s 154 of the Act for grant of TDS credit

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

TDS payable. It was further explained that the brokerage / commission expenses are paid to the agents/brokers who help the assessee company in its business of real estate development at the initial stage of the business. 5. Similarly, the assessee explained that the expenses shown under the head consultancy fees in fact, represents the site development expenses. Thus, these

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)

Section 154/272A(2)(k)/274 of the Income Tax Act, 196I 1s ab initio erroneous and bad in law. 7. Because, there is no justification for raising of the demand of Rs. 2,03,578/- for non-filing of Form No. 26Q therefore it is incorrect and unlawful, the Same deserves to be vacated in toto. 8. Because, the assessing

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)

Section 154/272A(2)(k)/274 of the Income Tax Act, 196I 1s ab initio erroneous and bad in law. 7. Because, there is no justification for raising of the demand of Rs. 2,03,578/- for non-filing of Form No. 26Q therefore it is incorrect and unlawful, the Same deserves to be vacated in toto. 8. Because, the assessing

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)

Section 154/272A(2)(k)/274 of the Income Tax Act, 196I 1s ab initio erroneous and bad in law. 7. Because, there is no justification for raising of the demand of Rs. 2,03,578/- for non-filing of Form No. 26Q therefore it is incorrect and unlawful, the Same deserves to be vacated in toto. 8. Because, the assessing

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)

Section 154/272A(2)(k)/274 of the Income Tax Act, 196I 1s ab initio erroneous and bad in law. 7. Because, there is no justification for raising of the demand of Rs. 2,03,578/- for non-filing of Form No. 26Q therefore it is incorrect and unlawful, the Same deserves to be vacated in toto. 8. Because, the assessing

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 Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 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)

Section 154/272A(2)(k)/274 of the Income Tax Act, 196I 1s ab initio erroneous and bad in law. 7. Because, there is no justification for raising of the demand of Rs. 2,03,578/- for non-filing of Form No. 26Q therefore it is incorrect and unlawful, the Same deserves to be vacated in toto. 8. Because, the assessing

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

TDS is not applicable therefore the addition sustained to the extent of Rs. 10,23,076.00 is illegal and unwarranted. 4. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 2,46,894.00 as maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as per Para 8.4 is highly unjustified in so far as the disallowance made on adhoc basis

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

TDS is not applicable therefore the addition sustained to the extent of Rs. 10,23,076.00 is illegal and unwarranted. 4. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 2,46,894.00 as maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as per Para 8.4 is highly unjustified in so far as the disallowance made on adhoc basis