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.

43 results for “TDS”+ Section 2(22)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,936Mumbai2,922Bangalore1,541Chennai1,074Pune738Kolkata692Hyderabad605Ahmedabad569Indore554Jaipur354Cochin308Chandigarh264Raipur236Karnataka221Visakhapatnam210Patna172Cuttack152Surat142Nagpur135Rajkot102Lucknow93Ranchi75Amritsar53Dehradun48Allahabad43Guwahati41Jodhpur40Agra36Panaji32Telangana27Jabalpur21SC14Varanasi12Kerala10Calcutta5Orissa2Uttarakhand2J&K1Rajasthan1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 234E36TDS30Addition to Income27Section 200A(1)24Section 200A24Section 26319Section 15419Penalty19Section 143(3)17Section 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 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)

22 ITR/1998) and also A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 decision of Delhi-tribunal in the case of ACIT v. NBCC in ITA no. 5870/Del/2010. Our attention was also drawn to the assessment order and appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A). 6.2 On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that these are prior period expenses and hence the same cannot

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

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

17
Section 253(3)15
Charitable Trust12

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)

22 ITR/1998) and also A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 decision of Delhi-tribunal in the case of ACIT v. NBCC in ITA no. 5870/Del/2010. Our attention was also drawn to the assessment order and appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A). 6.2 On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that these are prior period expenses and hence the same cannot

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)

22 ITR/1998) and also A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 decision of Delhi-tribunal in the case of ACIT v. NBCC in ITA no. 5870/Del/2010. Our attention was also drawn to the assessment order and appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A). 6.2 On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that these are prior period expenses and hence the same cannot

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, its Markup Commission etc., therefore, to arrive receivable amount from Ratna, the above mentioned deduction entries have also to be considered. The submission of the assessee on the account was examined. The assessee failed to explain the difference of Rs.1,10,43,576/- as raised at point no.1 of the notice u/s 263. Vide order sheet entry dated 9/10th

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, its Markup Commission etc., therefore, to arrive receivable amount from Ratna, the above mentioned deduction entries have also to be considered. The submission of the assessee on the account was examined. The assessee failed to explain the difference of Rs.1,10,43,576/- as raised at point no.1 of the notice u/s 263. Vide order sheet entry dated 9/10th

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

2,55,98,658 — -do-— - services Rent & other 29,98,438 27,00,000 .-—do-- charges 6. (i)Payment of special services The payments under this head are in the nature of payments to legal professionals attracting the provisions of section 194J. For the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14, the then TDS AO had worked out short

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

2,55,98,658 — -do-— - services Rent & other 29,98,438 27,00,000 .-—do-- charges 6. (i)Payment of special services The payments under this head are in the nature of payments to legal professionals attracting the provisions of section 194J. For the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14, the then TDS AO had worked out short

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

2,55,98,658 — -do-— - services Rent & other 29,98,438 27,00,000 .-—do-- charges 6. (i)Payment of special services The payments under this head are in the nature of payments to legal professionals attracting the provisions of section 194J. For the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14, the then TDS AO had worked out short

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

2,55,98,658 — -do-— - services Rent & other 29,98,438 27,00,000 .-—do-- charges 6. (i)Payment of special services The payments under this head are in the nature of payments to legal professionals attracting the provisions of section 194J. For the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14, the then TDS AO had worked out short

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 224/ALLD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CPC (TDS) , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 218/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 225/ALLD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 221/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 223/ALLD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 220/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 222/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 217/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 219/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 226/ALLD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 227/ALLD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel