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.

140 results for “TDS”+ Addition to Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,327Delhi5,128Bangalore1,981Chennai1,834Kolkata1,681Ahmedabad1,069Hyderabad947Pune818Jaipur603Chandigarh501Raipur409Indore408Cochin344Cuttack313Surat287Visakhapatnam279Nagpur235Rajkot228Karnataka221Patna200Lucknow161Amritsar140Jabalpur123Ranchi94Jodhpur88Guwahati76Agra74Allahabad60Dehradun55Panaji54Telangana35Varanasi23SC16Calcutta15Kerala10Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan6Orissa4Uttarakhand3Punjab & Haryana2J&K2Bombay1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income93TDS57Section 4056Section 14850Disallowance48Section 143(3)47Section 14434Deduction34Section 250(6)33Section 250

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. BABA GHULAM SHAH BADSHAH UNIVERSITY , RAJOURI.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department is dismissed

ITA 120/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.Gupta & Akshun Gupta (Ld. CAs.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)
Section 250(6)

income, the tax effect would include notional tax on disputed additions. In case of penalty orders, the tax effect will mean quantum of penalty deleted or reduced in the order to be appealed against. **3.** In reply to the objection of the ld. DR, the Ld. AR emphasized even for the sake of argument if the case of the assessee

MR RUDER MANI WALIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Showing 1–20 of 140 · Page 1 of 7

23
Section 139(1)22
Section 1022
ITA 257/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed
ITAT Amritsar
17 Jul 2023
AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 194DSection 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250oSection 48

addition of Rs. 46,79,856/- on account of maturity amount of LIC policy. 3. That the assessee has already declared the income under head Capital Gain. 4. That the CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal on the ground that assessee had not complied with the notices issued by the department, as the assessee has complied with

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 347/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

TDS benefit to be given did not lead to escapement of income Mere fact that matters need to be verified and examined further could never be reason good enough to believe that income had escaped assessment and re- open assessment proceedings was bad in law-Assessee's Appeals allowed. b. Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Batra Bhatta Company, High Court

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 346/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

TDS benefit to be given did not lead to escapement of income Mere fact that matters need to be verified and examined further could never be reason good enough to believe that income had escaped assessment and re- open assessment proceedings was bad in law-Assessee's Appeals allowed. b. Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Batra Bhatta Company, High Court

MESERS MALWA MOTORS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

additions made to its’ returned income in the penalty proceedings. The said explanation was the same as advanced in the assessment proceedings. The non- returning of the commission income (Rs. 1,30,247) was on account of non-receipt thereof, having been credited to the assessee’s account (by the payer) on 30/3/2012. No credit for tax deducted at source

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

addition to this, the assessee is also an agriculturist. During the year under consideration, the assessee was under the impression that the tax applicable on the salary income of the assessee has already been deducted in the form of TDS

INDERJIT SINGH,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PHAGAWARA

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

ITA 369/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Sharma, C.A
Section 143(1)Section 154oSection 250

addition made under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the guidelines laid down by the CBDT as per instruction No. 10/2017 dated 15/11/2017. 3. That the worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate the fact that income reported in Form 26AS has been offered to tax in the return of income

SHRI BALDEV SINGH ,ABOHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (2), FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 48/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(1)Section 250o

addition of Rs.8,86,320/- which was reflected in Form 26AS of the assessee. The assessee was erred to take the income from M/s Solairedirect Energy India Ltd. amount of Rs.2,48,906/-. The TDS

SH. AMRINDER SINGH DHIMAN,NAKODAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE PHAGWARA, PHAGWARA

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

ITA 584/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, Sr DR
Section 40

additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rule, 1962 before the ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) asked for the remand report & the ld AO submitted the report accordingly. 7.a. The fact is that the ld. AO disallowed the expenses of the assessee U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of TDS

SHRI KEWAL KRISHAN,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, ZIRA

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

ITA 541/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Kuldip Singh Sra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 28(2)Section 3ASection 3A(1)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 57

additional compensation". Now, since the amount of Rs.19,80,064/- was interest, even TDS of Rs.4,07,893/- was effected on the said amount @ 20%+3% CESS. 8. In terms of the provisions of sub section (iv) of section 57, read with sub- clause (viii) of section 56(2) of the Income

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

ITA 70/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C.A
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

income tax portal), the gross contract receipts from FCI was reflected at Rs.15.69 crores (and TDS deducted accordingly), which resulted in an apparent non -disclosure of gross contract receipts to the tune of Rs.1.73 crores, as per the return filed. 4. The assessee explained the difference that the said transport bill amount of Rs.1.73 crores has been actually received

SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 53/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2014-15, 2016-17 to 2017-18. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. ACIT, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar(in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. 2. At the outset, two appeals are filed by the assesses and four appeals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 88/ASR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2014-15, 2016-17 to 2017-18. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. ACIT, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar(in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. 2. At the outset, two appeals are filed by the assesses and four appeals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 89/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2014-15, 2016-17 to 2017-18. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. ACIT, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar(in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. 2. At the outset, two appeals are filed by the assesses and four appeals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 87/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2014-15, 2016-17 to 2017-18. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. ACIT, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar(in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. 2. At the outset, two appeals are filed by the assesses and four appeals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 90/ASR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2014-15, 2016-17 to 2017-18. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. ACIT, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar(in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. 2. At the outset, two appeals are filed by the assesses and four appeals

SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

ITA 51/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2014-15, 2016-17 to 2017-18. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. ACIT, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar(in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. 2. At the outset, two appeals are filed by the assesses and four appeals

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR,GARHSHANKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, HOSIARPUR

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

ITA 27/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 69A

income of the assessee and, therefore action of AO -was not justified — yes." It is only his assumption and presumption and hence the action of the AO deserves to be vacated on this score. The assessee in this regard also drawn our attention to the judgments where it has been held that addition under assumptions & presumptions or guess work cannot

SH. VIKRANT KANSHAL,BATHINDA vs. THE ICNOMET-AX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 367/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

TDS certificates (at PB pgs 12, 13), the same, he would continue, evidence the commission earned from the said activity at a gross amount of Rs.13.61 lacs for the 2 Vikrant Kansal Prop. V. K. Teleservices v ITO relevant year, and which formed the basis for the assessee returning a business income of Rs.3,73,550 for the year

SHRI GURIQBAL SINGH,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, BATALA

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

ITA 782/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 782/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Guriqbal Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S K. P. Rice Mills, Ward-1, Razdan Road, Qadian, Batala Gurdaspur-143516, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aitps1996E Assessee By : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Dr Date Of Hearing :22.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-I, Amritsar Dated 31.10.2017. 2. Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 5 Are General In Nature & Hence Does Not Require Separate Adjudication By Us.

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, DR

Income Tax (Appeals) considering the submissions held as under: ITA No. 782/Asr./2017 5 Guriqbal Singh “I have considered the assessment order and the written submission of the appellant and find considerable weight on the arguments of the AO for making the addition of Rs. 20 lakh by treating the so-called unsecured loan received from Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh