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.

9 results for “TDS”+ Section 226(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi350Mumbai294Chennai188Karnataka168Bangalore132Kolkata94Raipur88Ahmedabad60Jaipur59Pune56Hyderabad52Dehradun31Indore30Chandigarh28Jodhpur23Cuttack16Cochin14Rajkot14Lucknow13Visakhapatnam10Amritsar9Nagpur8Surat6Jabalpur6Guwahati6Panaji5Patna4Kerala3SC3Agra2Telangana2Allahabad2Ranchi1Orissa1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)13Section 40A(3)12Section 26310Section 407Disallowance7Section 1544Section 194C4TDS4Addition to Income3Deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , HOSHIAPUR vs. SHRI HARPINDER SINGH GILL , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 163/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 96

TDS, and Large Increase in capital. 4 ITO v. Harpinder Singh Gill Being not satisfied with the reply of the assessee, the Assessment for the A.Y. 2018-19 was completed by the AO on 30.12.2019 at total income of Rs. 3,05,77,966/-. 4. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before

NARINDER AND COMPANY,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR

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

ITA 93/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed
2
Cash Deposit2
ITAT Amritsar
10 Oct 2022
AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, C.A. and Sh. V.S. AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263p

TDS returns, VAT returns, details of creditors, debtors, etc. As such, the issue of cash deposited during demonetization period and the source was duly explained by the assessee to the Assessing Officer and as such the 'financial results' along with the cash book of the assessee were properly examined and considered by the Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 101/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

226 (SC). This in fact is also the sub-stratum of the subsequent amendments to section 40(a)(ia), held by the Hon’ble Courts as retrospective. The burden to prove its claim in this respect, however, would be on the assessee, for which it shall be allowed a reasonable opportunity by the AO. We may also here deliberate

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 176/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

226 (SC). This in fact is also the sub-stratum of the subsequent amendments to section 40(a)(ia), held by the Hon’ble Courts as retrospective. The burden to prove its claim in this respect, however, would be on the assessee, for which it shall be allowed a reasonable opportunity by the AO. We may also here deliberate

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 100/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

226 (SC). This in fact is also the sub-stratum of the subsequent amendments to section 40(a)(ia), held by the Hon’ble Courts as retrospective. The burden to prove its claim in this respect, however, would be on the assessee, for which it shall be allowed a reasonable opportunity by the AO. We may also here deliberate

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 175/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

226 (SC). This in fact is also the sub-stratum of the subsequent amendments to section 40(a)(ia), held by the Hon’ble Courts as retrospective. The burden to prove its claim in this respect, however, would be on the assessee, for which it shall be allowed a reasonable opportunity by the AO. We may also here deliberate

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

3. 28-12-2012 Agriculture receipts Rs 263,318/- 4. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK Rs 22,50,000/- (CASH WITHDRAWAL) 5. 2-01-2013 Agriculture receipts Rs 60,676/- 6. 16-1-2012 Agriculture receipts Rs 135.919/- Rs 31,01,679/- It was submitted by the appellant in written submission and discussion during the course of hearing that

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

3), the ld. AO had noticed in 3CD report of Balance Sheet the assessee was contravening Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act amount to Rs. 10,07,395/- for payment of freight charges to related party without deduction of TDS and payment of interest amount to Rs. 47,509/- to TATA Capital Finance Ltd without deducting TDS. The notice

M/S. PMS DIESELS,,PHAGWARA vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PHAGWARA

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

ITA 65/ASR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 65/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajeev K. Gubgotra, (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 268ASection 40

TDS on the impugned sum. How could, then, one may ask, section 40(a)(ia) be regarded as applicable? The order by the tribunal, as apparent from the applicable monetary limits u/s. 268A of the Act, precluding the Revenue from challenging the same in further appeal, has attained finality. The impugned disallowance is accordingly deleted. For the next two sums