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.

8 results for “TDS”+ Section 199(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai422Delhi420Bangalore201Chennai109Karnataka108Chandigarh90Kolkata85Ahmedabad82Jaipur71Hyderabad70Pune63Raipur45Lucknow36Jodhpur36Indore22Cuttack22Visakhapatnam20Nagpur11Amritsar8Surat6Rajkot6Telangana5Cochin4Agra3Rajasthan3Allahabad2Panaji2SC2Jabalpur1Calcutta1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 234E8Section 200A8TDS7Addition to Income5Section 143(1)4Section 1544Deduction4Section 250(6)3Section 143(3)3Section 148

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 was made by the Ld. AO in accordance with the reporting as per Tax Audit Report which was not added back in Computation of Income at the time of filing of Return of Income. I.T.A. No.407/Asr/2019 5 Assessment Year: 2015-16 3.3. Further, the disallowance amount of Rs. 5,28,924/- was made on account of depreciation claimed

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

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

3
Section 1473
Rectification u/s 1542
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

2. That the worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in upholding the 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

SHRI HARINDER PAL SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 123/ASR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 153ASection 154Section 205Section 250

TDS of Rs. 6.66 lakhs on the ground that I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2022 5 Assessment Year: 2015-16 such amount was not deposited by the employer. This Court in such background after referring to Section 205 of the Act held and observed.” 3.2 The ld. counsel for the assessee further relied on the order of the Karnataka High Court in the case

M/S. CHAUDHARY ENTERPRISES,,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 578/ASR/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 578/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwini Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 02.12.2010 for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. 2. The first issue raised in appeal is qua an addition in the sum of Rs.4,14,900/- on account of difference in the charges receivable as per the assessee’s accounts and that as per the tax deduction statement

MESERS SVIM TECH SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,FIROZPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 428/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

For Appellant: Sh. P.N. Arora (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250(6)

199 days The late fee was calculated at Rs.39,800/- but restricted to the total tax deducted to the extent of Rs.37,290/- 79 days @ Rs. 200/- per day 02/08/2013 15/05/2013 08/02/2014 at Rs. 15,800/- 2. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the said levy of late fees while relying upon the judgment passed by the Gujrat High Court

MESERS SVIM TECH SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,FIROZPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 427/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

For Appellant: Sh. P.N. Arora (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250(6)

199 days The late fee was calculated at Rs.39,800/- but restricted to the total tax deducted to the extent of Rs.37,290/- 79 days @ Rs. 200/- per day 02/08/2013 15/05/2013 08/02/2014 at Rs. 15,800/- 2. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the said levy of late fees while relying upon the judgment passed by the Gujrat High Court

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

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