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.

22 results for “TDS”+ Section 148(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,073Delhi927Bangalore360Chennai332Kolkata262Hyderabad245Ahmedabad199Jaipur151Pune134Karnataka127Chandigarh126Cochin75Surat73Indore71Raipur56Rajkot49Lucknow46Visakhapatnam46Nagpur35Patna26Guwahati25Amritsar22Cuttack21Agra18Jabalpur10Jodhpur9Allahabad8Panaji6Ranchi6Varanasi6Dehradun5SC4Telangana2Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 14855Section 35A20Addition to Income20Section 14718Section 139(1)17Section 143(3)14Section 14414Section 250(6)12Section 1519TDS

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

Section 139 (5) of the Act was filed before the Assessing Officer. We answer both the question Nos. 1 and 2 in negative and in favour of assessee”. Ground No. 3 9. Ground No. 3, not pressed. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 32 Assessment Year: 2018-19 10. The ld. AR argued that the assessee paidcommission during financial year

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

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

7
Cash Deposit5
Penalty5

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

148 vide notice dated 29.03.2019 (after necessary approval from higher authorities), mainly on the issue regarding availability of deduction claimed u/s 35AD(8)(c)(ii) of the Act. I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 4 The relevant portion of the recorded reasons are reproduced below for ready reference: “2. The assessee has constructed a godown

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

148 vide notice dated 29.03.2019 (after necessary approval from higher authorities), mainly on the issue regarding availability of deduction claimed u/s 35AD(8)(c)(ii) of the Act. I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 4 The relevant portion of the recorded reasons are reproduced below for ready reference: “2. The assessee has constructed a godown

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 34/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

148 vide notice dated31.03.2021 on the basis of information that the appellant had high value transactions in the nature of cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 25286429/- in his ICICI Bank Account No 202105000180. (Please refer page no 16-45) Thereafter notices u/s 142(1) were issued on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 requesting the assessee to furnish explanation

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 31/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

148 vide notice dated31.03.2021 on the basis of information that the appellant had high value transactions in the nature of cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 25286429/- in his ICICI Bank Account No 202105000180. (Please refer page no 16-45) Thereafter notices u/s 142(1) were issued on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 requesting the assessee to furnish explanation

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 32/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

148 vide notice dated31.03.2021 on the basis of information that the appellant had high value transactions in the nature of cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 25286429/- in his ICICI Bank Account No 202105000180. (Please refer page no 16-45) Thereafter notices u/s 142(1) were issued on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 requesting the assessee to furnish explanation

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 33/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

148 vide notice dated31.03.2021 on the basis of information that the appellant had high value transactions in the nature of cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 25286429/- in his ICICI Bank Account No 202105000180. (Please refer page no 16-45) Thereafter notices u/s 142(1) were issued on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 requesting the assessee to furnish explanation

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

2) (4) (3-4) Receipts 16192750 16141750 51000 1 Bharti Singh v. Asstt.CIT 7. That the Ld. AO accepted the return u/s 148 as it is, as filed, for A.Y 2014- 15 and 2016-17 i.e; without making any addition, though the case was reopened on the same hypothetical theory of in genuine and bogus expenses

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

2) (4) (3-4) Receipts 16192750 16141750 51000 1 Bharti Singh v. Asstt.CIT 7. That the Ld. AO accepted the return u/s 148 as it is, as filed, for A.Y 2014- 15 and 2016-17 i.e; without making any addition, though the case was reopened on the same hypothetical theory of in genuine and bogus expenses

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

2) (4) (3-4) Receipts 16192750 16141750 51000 1 Bharti Singh v. Asstt.CIT 7. That the Ld. AO accepted the return u/s 148 as it is, as filed, for A.Y 2014- 15 and 2016-17 i.e; without making any addition, though the case was reopened on the same hypothetical theory of in genuine and bogus expenses

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

2. Brief facts emerging are that the assessee is a transport contractor under FCI (Food Corporation of India)engaged in the business of providing goods carriage (trucks)for transportation of food grains from their godowns, as per requirement of FCI (the contractee in this case). 3. For the year under appeal return of income was filed disclosing gross transport contract

SHRI YASH PAUL MALHOTRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 380/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

148 of the Act are illegal and bad in law. 2. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, Learned ClT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act in respect of amount advanced to Sh. Parveen Kumar Sharma which stood recorded in books of accounts and duly reflected

MEASAGE BHAI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

TDS and had duly deposited it as required. From the perusal of record it can be Very well worked out that there was actual movement of goods and that our client had actually production purchased the goods / wheat, which he had used for its The detail of all the purchases is as under: S. Bill Dated Amount Goods Vehicle

MESERS GRAND MUMTAZ RESORTS,KASHMIR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (5), KASHMIR

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

ITA 314/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr, DR
Section 143(3)

TDS wherever applicable has been adequately deducted. 3. On circumstances and facts of the case, the worthy CIT (A) was not justified in upholding Ld. ITO’s view that replacement of existing worn out wooden flooring by fresh wooden flooring was a capital expenditure keeping in view the nature of business, cold weather and other condition in which the assessee

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

section 263 of the l. T. Act, 1 9 6 1 after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. 4. The case was reopened on the reasons that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 60,00,000 in her saving bank account maintained with the Oriental Bank of Commerce during the financial year 2010-11 and that no voluntary return

SHRI KANCHAN KUMAR MITRA,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4 (3), AMRITSAR

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

ITA 539/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

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

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 80C

2. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a service man. He travelled the world in different time during service period. The notice u/s 148 was originated in the Amritsar and assessment was completed with addition of Rs.10,31,877/- in the head of salary which was received from “Consulting Engineering Services India

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 77/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Magow, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rahul Dhawan, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 250(6)

TDS was allowed and approved both by the A O and by the Commissioner. Such illegal action of the A O is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. 2. The appellant had claimed in the return exemption from tax on long-term Capital Gain of Rs. 8,32,58,783/- in respect of the agricultural land which

M/S DICKSON ELECTRONICS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, ground of assessee related addition of interest amount to

ITA 33/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 201Section 250(6)Section 40

TDS) in ITA no. 486 to 489/ASR/2014 date of pronouncement of order 12.06.2015. The respectful observations of the above-mentioned judgment in para 2 is extracted as follows: “2. As before the Authorities below, the assesse maintains that the PR was not liable to deduct tax at source under section 194H of the Act. The assesse has placed reliance

SECURE 1 SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD-4(2), JALANDHAR

Accordingly ground no. 05 to 07 raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed

ITA 46/ASR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None
Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 248Section 250Section 5

2. There is no appearance by the assesee or his counsel in spite of repeated calls neither in physical mode nor in virtual. No adjournment application has been filed either. It is seen from order sheet entries that there has not been any representation by the assessee on previous three occasions on 18th Aug., 2025, 25th Sept., 2025 and 17th

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR vs. SECURE 1 SERVICES PVT. LTD., JALANDHAR

Accordingly ground no. 05 to 07 raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed

ITA 247/ASR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None
Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 248Section 250Section 5

2. There is no appearance by the assesee or his counsel in spite of repeated calls neither in physical mode nor in virtual. No adjournment application has been filed either. It is seen from order sheet entries that there has not been any representation by the assessee on previous three occasions on 18th Aug., 2025, 25th Sept., 2025 and 17th