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.

17 results for “TDS”+ Section 36clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,118Mumbai2,089Bangalore1,107Chennai807Kolkata555Ahmedabad478Hyderabad444Pune285Indore266Chandigarh249Jaipur245Cochin241Raipur182Karnataka168Visakhapatnam131Surat97Cuttack97Rajkot86Jabalpur83Lucknow72Nagpur58Ranchi43Amritsar41Guwahati38Jodhpur30Agra25Dehradun24Telangana18Allahabad17Panaji17Varanasi13Patna12SC10Kerala7Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan5Uttarakhand2Calcutta2J&K1

Key Topics

Section 26318Section 253(3)15Section 143(3)12Section 194C12Section 143(2)8Addition to Income8TDS8Disallowance7Section 145(3)5Section 201

SAVLA AGENCIES,ALLAHABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-I, , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 28/ALLD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad06 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2011-12 Savla Agencies, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, 26, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Range-I, Allahabad Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aawfs0816J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Tanmay Sadh, Adv Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.01.2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. Tanmay Sadh, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 40

36(1)(iii) or section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Since the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to remand the matter therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) qua this issue is not inconformity with provisions of section 250 and 251 of the Income Tax Act. Further, the AO has made the disallowance by considering the entries made

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

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

4
Section 194J4
Undisclosed Income4
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

36,01,960/- which comes to a total amount of deduction made by the NTPC of Rs. 1,42,62,384/-. Further, the TDS was deducted by M/s Ratna Infrastructure Project Private Limited of Rs. 5,37,872/- and the gross total amount of deduction and TDS comes to Rs. 1,48,00,276/-. After deducting this amount as well

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

36,01,960/- which comes to a total amount of deduction made by the NTPC of Rs. 1,42,62,384/-. Further, the TDS was deducted by M/s Ratna Infrastructure Project Private Limited of Rs. 5,37,872/- and the gross total amount of deduction and TDS comes to Rs. 1,48,00,276/-. After deducting this amount as well

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 ought to have been deducted, which led Assessing Officer to hold that the assessee has defaulted u/s 201 (1) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 36,49,063/- and also the assessee is liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of the 1961 Act. The assessee on its part had not furnished any details in compliance

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 ought to have been deducted, which led Assessing Officer to hold that the assessee has defaulted u/s 201 (1) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 36,49,063/- and also the assessee is liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of the 1961 Act. The assessee on its part had not furnished any details in compliance

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 ought to have been deducted, which led Assessing Officer to hold that the assessee has defaulted u/s 201 (1) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 36,49,063/- and also the assessee is liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of the 1961 Act. The assessee on its part had not furnished any details in compliance

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 ought to have been deducted, which led Assessing Officer to hold that the assessee has defaulted u/s 201 (1) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 36,49,063/- and also the assessee is liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) of the 1961 Act. The assessee on its part had not furnished any details in compliance

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

36,67,098/- which is more than three times of the total turnover of the assessee. Such an act cannot be said to be judicious. The rejection of books of accounts u/s 145 and the Best Judgment assessment under Section 144 go together with each other, in the process of making an assessment, where the assessee does not produce relevant

GAYA PRASAD BAJAJ,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 375/ALLD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2012-13 Gaya Prasad Bajaj, V. Income Tax Officer, 34-A, Chak Zero Road, Ward-1(2) Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Aampb9895N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.08.2021

For Appellant: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

TDS has been effected on such Commission Payment. e. Payment of Commission has been accepted by the same CIT (A) in case of son of the assessee on like facts and analogues circumstances and on similar considerations. f. The persons who have been paid the Commission have not been interrogated or examined. There is no denial of receipt of Commission

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)

36 filed with tribunal.The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) should have called for remand report from AO before rejecting the contentions of the assessee. 13.2 The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the matteris required to be set aside to the file of Assessing Officer for verification of the contentions of assessee. A.Ys

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)

36 filed with tribunal.The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) should have called for remand report from AO before rejecting the contentions of the assessee. 13.2 The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the matteris required to be set aside to the file of Assessing Officer for verification of the contentions of assessee. A.Ys

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)

36 filed with tribunal.The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) should have called for remand report from AO before rejecting the contentions of the assessee. 13.2 The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the matteris required to be set aside to the file of Assessing Officer for verification of the contentions of assessee. A.Ys

M/SPANDEY TRANSPORT CO.,SONEBHADRA vs. ITO,, MIRZAPUR

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

ITA 12/ALLD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Praveen GodboleFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Singh, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234Section 292B

Section 145(3) of the Act. However, the mere rejection of the books of account would not is so facto result an addition if the profit declared by the assessee is either in the line with the past history or better than the past history of profit declared by the assessee. The Gross Profit and Net Profit declared

M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES(P).LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT. (0SD), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

ITA 152/ALLD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Namita S. Pandey, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

36 ITA NO. 152/A/2013, 179/A/2013, 632/A/2014, 633/A/2014 & C.O. 16/A/2013 BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED disbelieved by the AO as AO was of the view that when quantity in weight are tallying between the document impounded from the office of CA during survey operations and in the audit report, there is no justification offered by the assessee for variation

JCIT(OSD),, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES, (P) LTD., ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

ITA 179/ALLD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Namita S. Pandey, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

36 ITA NO. 152/A/2013, 179/A/2013, 632/A/2014, 633/A/2014 & C.O. 16/A/2013 BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED disbelieved by the AO as AO was of the view that when quantity in weight are tallying between the document impounded from the office of CA during survey operations and in the audit report, there is no justification offered by the assessee for variation

M/S BALAJU AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

ITA 632/ALLD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Namita S. Pandey, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

36 ITA NO. 152/A/2013, 179/A/2013, 632/A/2014, 633/A/2014 & C.O. 16/A/2013 BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED disbelieved by the AO as AO was of the view that when quantity in weight are tallying between the document impounded from the office of CA during survey operations and in the audit report, there is no justification offered by the assessee for variation

M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT,CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

ITA 633/ALLD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Namita S. Pandey, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

36 ITA NO. 152/A/2013, 179/A/2013, 632/A/2014, 633/A/2014 & C.O. 16/A/2013 BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED disbelieved by the AO as AO was of the view that when quantity in weight are tallying between the document impounded from the office of CA during survey operations and in the audit report, there is no justification offered by the assessee for variation