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.

63 results for “TDS”+ Section 8(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,288Mumbai5,247Bangalore2,551Chennai2,008Kolkata1,440Pune1,422Ahmedabad1,090Hyderabad982Indore732Cochin642Jaipur641Patna549Chandigarh513Raipur481Nagpur368Visakhapatnam353Karnataka349Surat316Cuttack296Rajkot238Lucknow175Amritsar168Jodhpur119Jabalpur118Ranchi101Dehradun96Agra81Guwahati74Panaji67Allahabad63Telangana51SC23Varanasi17Kerala15Calcutta14Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan7J&K3Orissa3Punjab & Haryana3Uttarakhand3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

TDS40Addition to Income39Section 234E36Penalty27Section 143(3)26Section 200A(1)24Section 200A24Section 26320Section 15419Section 153A

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)

8,20,48,642.00 2008-09 15,64,43,000.00 2,59,47,004.00 18,23,90,004.00 2009-10 4,56,00,512.00 2,26,24,009.00 6,82,24,521.00 2010-11 6,87,88,355.00 97,86,320. 00 7,85,74,675.00 2011-12 6,80,29,000.00 84,60,929.00 7,64,89,929.00 Total

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4

16
Section 271(1)(c)16
Charitable Trust12
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)

8,20,48,642.00 2008-09 15,64,43,000.00 2,59,47,004.00 18,23,90,004.00 2009-10 4,56,00,512.00 2,26,24,009.00 6,82,24,521.00 2010-11 6,87,88,355.00 97,86,320. 00 7,85,74,675.00 2011-12 6,80,29,000.00 84,60,929.00 7,64,89,929.00 Total

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)

8,20,48,642.00 2008-09 15,64,43,000.00 2,59,47,004.00 18,23,90,004.00 2009-10 4,56,00,512.00 2,26,24,009.00 6,82,24,521.00 2010-11 6,87,88,355.00 97,86,320. 00 7,85,74,675.00 2011-12 6,80,29,000.00 84,60,929.00 7,64,89,929.00 Total

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

2. The learned Pr. CIT has grossly erred in revision the order passed by the learned assessing officer without appreciating that there is no error, much less prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue to warrant a revision and therefore the order passed by the learned Pr. CIT is ultra vires to the scope of Section 263 and requires

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

2. The learned Pr. CIT has grossly erred in revision the order passed by the learned assessing officer without appreciating that there is no error, much less prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue to warrant a revision and therefore the order passed by the learned Pr. CIT is ultra vires to the scope of Section 263 and requires

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

TDS on these payments as is mandated under the provisions of Section 197 of the 1961 Act. Provisions of Section 119 of the 1961 Act empowers CBDT to grant exemption from rigours of provisions of the 1961 Act to redress genuine hardship of the taxpayers. The assessee has also filed additional evidences before tribunal(pb/page 8

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

TDS on these payments as is mandated under the provisions of Section 197 of the 1961 Act. Provisions of Section 119 of the 1961 Act empowers CBDT to grant exemption from rigours of provisions of the 1961 Act to redress genuine hardship of the taxpayers. The assessee has also filed additional evidences before tribunal(pb/page 8

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

TDS on these payments as is mandated under the provisions of Section 197 of the 1961 Act. Provisions of Section 119 of the 1961 Act empowers CBDT to grant exemption from rigours of provisions of the 1961 Act to redress genuine hardship of the taxpayers. The assessee has also filed additional evidences before tribunal(pb/page 8

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

TDS on these payments as is mandated under the provisions of Section 197 of the 1961 Act. Provisions of Section 119 of the 1961 Act empowers CBDT to grant exemption from rigours of provisions of the 1961 Act to redress genuine hardship of the taxpayers. The assessee has also filed additional evidences before tribunal(pb/page 8

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 2272A(2)(k) as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) are ex parte. The learned DR has referred to the penalty order as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) and submitted that there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the AO and the CIT(A). Thus the delay

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 2272A(2)(k) as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) are ex parte. The learned DR has referred to the penalty order as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) and submitted that there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the AO and the CIT(A). Thus the delay

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 2272A(2)(k) as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) are ex parte. The learned DR has referred to the penalty order as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) and submitted that there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the AO and the CIT(A). Thus the delay

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 2272A(2)(k) as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) are ex parte. The learned DR has referred to the penalty order as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) and submitted that there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the AO and the CIT(A). Thus the delay

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 2272A(2)(k) as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) are ex parte. The learned DR has referred to the penalty order as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) and submitted that there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the AO and the CIT(A). Thus the delay

M.K. AGRAWAL & CO.,SONEBHADRA vs. ACIT RANGE-III, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 309/ALLD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2010-11 M.K. Agrawal & Co., V. Acit, Range-Ii, Mirzapur Sonebhadra

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 194ISection 2Section 40Section 40a

2(28A) of the Income-tax Act, as it is not in respect of any money borrowed or debt incurred. In this view of the matter, it is clarified that that provisions of section 194A of the Income-tax Act are not attracted in these transactions. 3. A copy each of the referral note to the Ministry

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 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 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 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