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.

47 results for “TDS”+ Section 2(13)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,251Mumbai4,151Bangalore2,132Chennai1,455Kolkata1,062Pune891Ahmedabad794Hyderabad743Indore621Jaipur494Chandigarh419Raipur414Cochin354Nagpur288Karnataka287Surat255Visakhapatnam252Cuttack201Rajkot164Lucknow120Amritsar106Jabalpur99Ranchi89Dehradun76Agra60Patna59Guwahati47Allahabad47Panaji45Jodhpur41Telangana40SC19Kerala14Varanasi13Calcutta10Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Uttarakhand3Orissa3Punjab & Haryana2J&K2Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

TDS26Section 143(3)24Addition to Income24Section 26320Section 15419Section 153A16Section 271(1)(c)16Section 253(3)15Penalty15Section 194C

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)

13. Still Aggrieved by appellate order dated 23.09.2019 passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee company has filed an appeal before tribunal. The ld. counsel for assessee submitted before the Division Bench during the course of hearing that the assessee is only seeking set off of earlier year brought forward business loss and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation , in accordance with

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

Showing 1–20 of 47 · Page 1 of 3

14
Section 14812
Undisclosed Income11

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)

13. Still Aggrieved by appellate order dated 23.09.2019 passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee company has filed an appeal before tribunal. The ld. counsel for assessee submitted before the Division Bench during the course of hearing that the assessee is only seeking set off of earlier year brought forward business loss and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation , in accordance with

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)

13. Still Aggrieved by appellate order dated 23.09.2019 passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee company has filed an appeal before tribunal. The ld. counsel for assessee submitted before the Division Bench during the course of hearing that the assessee is only seeking set off of earlier year brought forward business loss and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation , in accordance with

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

13,531/- and further deduction was made towards mobilization advance of Rs. 32,29,354/-. He has further submitted that there was a TDS @ 2%, WCT @2%, labour cess @ 1%, interest @ 14.5%, retention L.D. of Rs. 36,01,960/- which comes to a total amount of deduction made by the NTPC of Rs. 1,42,62,384/-. Further, the TDS

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

13,531/- and further deduction was made towards mobilization advance of Rs. 32,29,354/-. He has further submitted that there was a TDS @ 2%, WCT @2%, labour cess @ 1%, interest @ 14.5%, retention L.D. of Rs. 36,01,960/- which comes to a total amount of deduction made by the NTPC of Rs. 1,42,62,384/-. Further, the TDS

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 383/ALLD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200(3)Section 227Section 272A(2)(k)

section u/s 272A(2)(k) as well as the order passed by the AO levying the penalty. The assessee has challenged the validity of the order on the ground that the Principal of the college is not the responsible person against whom the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings and passed the impugned order but the Manager of the school

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 379/ALLD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200(3)Section 227Section 272A(2)(k)

section u/s 272A(2)(k) as well as the order passed by the AO levying the penalty. The assessee has challenged the validity of the order on the ground that the Principal of the college is not the responsible person against whom the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings and passed the impugned order but the Manager of the school

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 380/ALLD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200(3)Section 227Section 272A(2)(k)

section u/s 272A(2)(k) as well as the order passed by the AO levying the penalty. The assessee has challenged the validity of the order on the ground that the Principal of the college is not the responsible person against whom the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings and passed the impugned order but the Manager of the school

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 382/ALLD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200(3)Section 227Section 272A(2)(k)

section u/s 272A(2)(k) as well as the order passed by the AO levying the penalty. The assessee has challenged the validity of the order on the ground that the Principal of the college is not the responsible person against whom the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings and passed the impugned order but the Manager of the school

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 381/ALLD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200(3)Section 227Section 272A(2)(k)

section u/s 272A(2)(k) as well as the order passed by the AO levying the penalty. The assessee has challenged the validity of the order on the ground that the Principal of the college is not the responsible person against whom the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings and passed the impugned order but the Manager of the school

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

section 206AA but failed to do so. It has also been admitted by the deductor in its submission before your honor that TDS on payments under the head Suspense Service has not been done at all. Therefore, the then AO has rightly calculated the short charge under this head of expenditure. (iii) Honorarium The register 11-C produced for verification

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

section 206AA but failed to do so. It has also been admitted by the deductor in its submission before your honor that TDS on payments under the head Suspense Service has not been done at all. Therefore, the then AO has rightly calculated the short charge under this head of expenditure. (iii) Honorarium The register 11-C produced for verification

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

section 206AA but failed to do so. It has also been admitted by the deductor in its submission before your honor that TDS on payments under the head Suspense Service has not been done at all. Therefore, the then AO has rightly calculated the short charge under this head of expenditure. (iii) Honorarium The register 11-C produced for verification

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

section 206AA but failed to do so. It has also been admitted by the deductor in its submission before your honor that TDS on payments under the head Suspense Service has not been done at all. Therefore, the then AO has rightly calculated the short charge under this head of expenditure. (iii) Honorarium The register 11-C produced for verification

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

2) , vide assessment order dated 21.12.2010 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. The Revenue conducted search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) against the assessee, on 03.02.2011 , and hence assessment originally framed by the AO u/s 143(3) , on 21st December, 2010 for assessment year 2008-09, was made prior to the date of search

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

13. It is clear from the assessment order that the AO issued notice under Section 143(2) through e-mail as well as registered post but there was no compliance. The AO then issued notices under Section 142(1) on 26.10.2017 and 04.12.2017 but ITA No. 62/ALLD/2020 and C.O. No. 01/ALLD/2021 (arising out of ITA No. 62/Alld/2020) Assessment Year

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

13,64,337.00 was maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by considering the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the act in wrong manner and also by ignoring the nature of payment and circumstances hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 8. That in any view of the matter a sum of Rs. 2

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

13,64,337.00 was maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by considering the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the act in wrong manner and also by ignoring the nature of payment and circumstances hence the addition is liable to be deleted. 8. That in any view of the matter a sum of Rs. 2

SHAKUNTALA KUSHWAHA,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(3), ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 130/ALLD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2009-10 Shakuntala Kushwaha V. Income Tax Officer 2(3) 105/54, Kareli Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Aodpk2329D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 02 2020

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

2 of 5 4. Thereafter, proceedings under section 263 of the Act were initiated, on the ground that on the freight paid during the year, amounting to Rs.9,32,378/- (8,09,896/- + 1,71,216/-), TDS was not deducted and the same should be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In this regard, the assessee filed

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