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.

32 results for “TDS”+ Section 23clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,969Delhi2,869Bangalore1,561Chennai1,039Kolkata670Ahmedabad494Pune438Hyderabad424Indore373Cochin318Jaipur284Chandigarh257Raipur230Karnataka199Surat140Nagpur108Visakhapatnam99Rajkot98Cuttack87Lucknow72Ranchi51Amritsar48Jodhpur41Dehradun38Jabalpur36Guwahati36Agra34Allahabad32Patna26Telangana26Panaji25SC15Varanasi11Kerala10Calcutta8Uttarakhand2Orissa1Rajasthan1Himachal Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 234E36Addition to Income27Section 200A(1)24Section 200A24Section 26318Section 143(3)16TDS16Section 253(3)15Section 153A12Charitable Trust

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

TDS statement/return u/s 200A of the Act. It has also not been in dispute that the Amendment in section 200A(1) and insertion of Clause (c)is prospective and not retrospective as held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri FatherajSinghvi(supra) in para no.21 to 23

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

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

12
Penalty12
Section 13210

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

TDS statement/return u/s 200A of the Act. It has also not been in dispute that the Amendment in section 200A(1) and insertion of Clause (c)is prospective and not retrospective as held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri FatherajSinghvi(supra) in para no.21 to 23

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

TDS statement/return u/s 200A of the Act. It has also not been in dispute that the Amendment in section 200A(1) and insertion of Clause (c)is prospective and not retrospective as held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri FatherajSinghvi(supra) in para no.21 to 23

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

TDS statement/return u/s 200A of the Act. It has also not been in dispute that the Amendment in section 200A(1) and insertion of Clause (c)is prospective and not retrospective as held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri FatherajSinghvi(supra) in para no.21 to 23

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

TDS statement/return u/s 200A of the Act. It has also not been in dispute that the Amendment in section 200A(1) and insertion of Clause (c)is prospective and not retrospective as held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri FatherajSinghvi(supra) in para no.21 to 23

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

TDS statement/return u/s 200A of the Act. It has also not been in dispute that the Amendment in section 200A(1) and insertion of Clause (c)is prospective and not retrospective as held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri FatherajSinghvi(supra) in para no.21 to 23

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

TDS statement/return u/s 200A of the Act. It has also not been in dispute that the Amendment in section 200A(1) and insertion of Clause (c)is prospective and not retrospective as held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri FatherajSinghvi(supra) in para no.21 to 23

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

TDS statement/return u/s 200A of the Act. It has also not been in dispute that the Amendment in section 200A(1) and insertion of Clause (c)is prospective and not retrospective as held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri FatherajSinghvi(supra) in para no.21 to 23

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

TDS statement/return u/s 200A of the Act. It has also not been in dispute that the Amendment in section 200A(1) and insertion of Clause (c)is prospective and not retrospective as held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri FatherajSinghvi(supra) in para no.21 to 23

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

TDS statement/return u/s 200A of the Act. It has also not been in dispute that the Amendment in section 200A(1) and insertion of Clause (c)is prospective and not retrospective as held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri FatherajSinghvi(supra) in para no.21 to 23

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

TDS statement/return u/s 200A of the Act. It has also not been in dispute that the Amendment in section 200A(1) and insertion of Clause (c)is prospective and not retrospective as held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri FatherajSinghvi(supra) in para no.21 to 23

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

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 228/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

TDS statement/return u/s 200A of the Act. It has also not been in dispute that the Amendment in section 200A(1) and insertion of Clause (c)is prospective and not retrospective as held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri FatherajSinghvi(supra) in para no.21 to 23

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

23,076.00 as maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the allegation that there was non deduction of tax at source on payment relating to marketing expenses is highly unjustified and in this regard the provision of section 40(a) (ia) as invoked is not correct as the said provision is not applicable at all hence the action

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

23,076.00 as maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the allegation that there was non deduction of tax at source on payment relating to marketing expenses is highly unjustified and in this regard the provision of section 40(a) (ia) as invoked is not correct as the said provision is not applicable at all hence the action

M/S MILLENIUM CONSULTANTS& SERVICE PROVIDERS,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 138/ALLD/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

TDS) on such commission amount on 07.07.2004, 07.09.2004 and 07.10.2004 ought to have been deposited by the Respondent before the end of the previous year i.e. 31.03.2005 to get the commission amount deducted from the total income in terms of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act as it stood then. But the same was deposited

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

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 KESARWANI <ARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT (OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 159/ALLD/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

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 153A

sections of the income tax act is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case.” ITA No.159/Alld./2013, 76/Alld./2013, 77/Alld/2013 & 78/Alld/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06,2006-07,2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. Kesarwani Marketing Private Limited,Allahabad U.P. v. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle, Allahabad ITA No. 159.Alld/2013-A.Y.: 2005-06 3. First , we shall take up appeal

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. C.IT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 76/ALLD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

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 153A

sections of the income tax act is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case.” ITA No.159/Alld./2013, 76/Alld./2013, 77/Alld/2013 & 78/Alld/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06,2006-07,2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. Kesarwani Marketing Private Limited,Allahabad U.P. v. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle, Allahabad ITA No. 159.Alld/2013-A.Y.: 2005-06 3. First , we shall take up appeal

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 77/ALLD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

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 153A

sections of the income tax act is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case.” ITA No.159/Alld./2013, 76/Alld./2013, 77/Alld/2013 & 78/Alld/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06,2006-07,2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. Kesarwani Marketing Private Limited,Allahabad U.P. v. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle, Allahabad ITA No. 159.Alld/2013-A.Y.: 2005-06 3. First , we shall take up appeal