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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Section 220(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi583Patna469Mumbai391Bangalore149Pune114Hyderabad97Chennai93Karnataka91Visakhapatnam57Kolkata54Jaipur51Cochin48Raipur33Lucknow32Chandigarh31Ahmedabad28Indore28Nagpur19Rajkot10Kerala8Amritsar5Ranchi5Agra4Jodhpur4Surat3Cuttack3SC2Dehradun2Varanasi2Telangana1Rajasthan1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 686Addition to Income5Section 143(3)4Section 1474Section 40A(3)4Section 69C3Natural Justice3Section 250(6)2Section 1442Section 144r

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

ITA 324/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

section 194C of the Act as considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT (TDS) v. United Rice Land Ltd.[2010] 322 ITR 594 1. A further finding of fact is that the freight payment is Rs. 1,72,723 and none of the individual payment exceeded Rs. 20,000. It was also not disputed that

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

In the result the ground no

2
Long Term Capital Gains2
House Property2
ITA 325/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

section 194C of the Act as considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT (TDS) v. United Rice Land Ltd.[2010] 322 ITR 594 1. A further finding of fact is that the freight payment is Rs. 1,72,723 and none of the individual payment exceeded Rs. 20,000. It was also not disputed that

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

6 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 ( relevant portion reproduced ) “5.3.3 I have considered the reasoning given by the AO in assessment order, submissions & documents submitted by the appellant, facts of the case and legal position. Modus operandi of bogus LTCG It shall be important to analyze the LTCG claimed by the assessee as exempt

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

6 I.T.A. Nos. 346 & 347/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 ( relevant portion reproduced ) “5.3.3 I have considered the reasoning given by the AO in assessment order, submissions & documents submitted by the appellant, facts of the case and legal position. Modus operandi of bogus LTCG It shall be important to analyze the LTCG claimed by the assessee as exempt

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

220 looms multiplied by the number of hours per week for which the machinery was entitled to work. The "loom-hours" had in the view of the court nothing to do with the capital structure of the business and there was nothing to show that the defect in the preparatory section which rendered the "loom-hours" un-utilisable was permanent