Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

26 results for “TDS”+ Disallowanceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,492 Delhi3,025 Bangalore1,468 Chennai1,360 Kolkata986 Ahmedabad516 Hyderabad412 Pune293 Jaipur215 Chandigarh205 Cochin144 Indore125 Raipur117 Lucknow115 Visakhapatnam115 Rajkot100 Surat92 Nagpur72 Ranchi71 Cuttack70 Jodhpur52 Patna43 Karnataka43 Guwahati35 Agra31 Panaji27 Amritsar26 Jabalpur26 Dehradun24 Allahabad13 Calcutta11 Kerala11 SC5 Varanasi5 Telangana4 Rajasthan4 Punjab & Haryana3 Gauhati1 Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 14846 Addition to Income24 Section 143(3)22 Section 14420 Section 4020 Section 1020 Section 35A20 Disallowance16 Section 139(1)13 Section 250

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-IV,, PATHANKOT vs. THE GURDASPUR CENTRAL CO. OPBANK LTD, GURDASPUR

In the result, the ground no

ITA 542/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenaandsh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 43D

TDS, the disallowance of the expenses related to advertisement amount of Rs.34,90,828/-, disallowance of the deduction of interest

SHRI NAVNEET SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

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

ITA 266/ASR/2022[2022-21]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

11

ITAT Amritsar

28 Apr 2023

AY 2022-21

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

Section 154Section 43B

disallowance of TDS u/s 43B. 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR vs. MEASAGE OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDKOT

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

ITA 407/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

TDS Rs. 2,38,149/- Disallowance of depreciation claimed on trucks in excess of 15% Rs. 5,28,924/- Assessed

F I L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

The appeal of the assessee is disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 72/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 40Section 80I

TDS deduction, it is held that the AO has correctly disallowed the sum of Rs.3,59,609/- u/s.40(a)(ia) and therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. M/S SURJIT SINGH AND CO, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected

ITA 16/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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

TDS was deducted on these 10 Asstt. CIT v. Surjit Singh and Co. payments being made to sub-contractor. Therefore, the disallowance

DAWN COTTAGE EMPORIUM,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

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

ITA 328/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 144oSection 250Section 40

disallowed of expenses, addition of sundry creditors and the addition of advance received from the party. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal I.T.A. No.328/Asr/2015 4 Assessment Year: 2010-11 partly and restricted the addition in following manners. For the rent payment amount to Rs.8,50,000/- was duly rejected

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

disallowing the claim of LTCG being exempt u/s 10(38) is fully justified. In view thereof, addition of Rs. 2,11,81,016/- made by the AO is upheld Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal and in course of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has argued

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

disallowing the claim of LTCG being exempt u/s 10(38) is fully justified. In view thereof, addition of Rs. 2,11,81,016/- made by the AO is upheld Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal and in course of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has argued

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

TDS accordingly as per the provisions of section 1941 of the Act. The nature of income for a same amount in question cannot be treated differently by the deductor and the deductee. This goes to prove that the treatment of rental income as business income is again not correct. 4 In view of the above facts, the rental income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 104/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

TDS accordingly as per the provisions of section 1941 of the Act. The nature of income for a same amount in question cannot be treated differently by the deductor and the deductee. This goes to prove that the treatment of rental income as business income is again not correct. 4 In view of the above facts, the rental income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR vs. SHRIMATI RAJ RANI ARORA, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 10/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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

disallowance of Rs. 11,82,945/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of claim of payment of interest on the unexplained cash credits. 8. Appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal.” 3. The department has raised a sole major issue spread over into 4 grounds of appeal regarding deletion of addition of Rs.1

SHRI NAVAL KISHORE SINGH,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the ground of appeal No

ITA 376/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, C. A

Section 144Section 250Section 44A

disallowance of bank interest and charges for A.Y. 2014-15 is confirmed. Accordingly, the ground raised in this appeal is dismissed.” 8. Now before the tribunal the Ld. AR of the assessee has referred to the audited balance sheet as at 31st March, 2014, to submit that the observation of the AO is erroneous

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 226/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal, Adv. &

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151

disallowance based only on hypothetical figures of expenses and ratio for the A.Y. 2015-16, without bringing any relevant material, independent evidence, independent verification against the same on record for AY 2012-13 and no reasons to believe arises, no record to show escapement, is a case of borrowed satisfaction and without jurisdiction, further CBDT circular on standard procedure

SMT. BHARTI SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 221/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal, Adv. &

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151

disallowance based only on hypothetical figures of expenses and ratio for the A.Y. 2015-16, without bringing any relevant material, independent evidence, independent verification against the same on record for AY 2012-13 and no reasons to believe arises, no record to show escapement, is a case of borrowed satisfaction and without jurisdiction, further CBDT circular on standard procedure

SMT. BHARTI SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, AMRITSAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 222/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal, Adv. &

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151

disallowance based only on hypothetical figures of expenses and ratio for the A.Y. 2015-16, without bringing any relevant material, independent evidence, independent verification against the same on record for AY 2012-13 and no reasons to believe arises, no record to show escapement, is a case of borrowed satisfaction and without jurisdiction, further CBDT circular on standard procedure

M/S TORRENT ROOFING SYSTEM,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

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

ITA 84/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143Section 263Section 40(1)(ia)

Disallowed the expanses to the tune of Rs 676050/- 25% of the total royalty paid in view of the Judgment of M/s Southern Switch Gear Ltd (232 ITR 359) But the facts of our case are entirety different from the facts of the case law relied on by the Pr CIT and A.O. We submitted many case law decided

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

ITA 193/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 250oSection 69C

TDS Certificate in Form 16A related to deduction of tax at source. The ld. AR fully denied that the assessee had no transaction with the RolmexInternational, as alleged by the revenue. The ld. AR placed that the details as below: I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 33 Assessment Year: 2018-19 “18. Addition of Rs. 4,57,32,318/- on account of alleged bogus

SPARROW SECURITY SERVICES ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JAMMU

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

ITA 40/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 250oSection 36Section 43B

disallow employer’s contributions to provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of employees, by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act, if it has been paid after the ‘due dates’, as per the relevant Acts. I.T.A. No.40/Asr/2023 10 Assessment Year: 2018-19 2. The matter has been examined

FIRST INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 46/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.46/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154oSection 194CSection 250Section 40

disallowance of Rs. 10,07,935/- made by the Ld. AO. 4. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter or add to the above grounds of appeal, before the appeal is heard or disposed off.” 3. When the appeal was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of assessee to represent his case. There is no application

MEASEG. LADAKH ROADLINES ,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

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

ITA 295/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 282

disallowance in the scrutiny assessment proceedings. The GP ratio of the appellant firm has also been reported at a lesser figure than in the previous assessment years. It is also to be kept in mind that 'best judgement assessment cannot be an arbitrary or fanciful assessment. Since the appellant firm itself has referred to the case of Associated Contractors, wherein