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.

4 results for “TDS”+ Section 292clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai335Delhi333Bangalore269Chennai97Karnataka94Kolkata71Chandigarh64Hyderabad53Ahmedabad37Jaipur32Indore32Cuttack25Pune21Raipur15Nagpur13Visakhapatnam12Guwahati8Lucknow5Surat5Amritsar4Cochin4Rajkot3Patna3Allahabad2Panaji2Ranchi2SC1Telangana1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 26310Section 143(3)9Section 2744Section 271(1)(c)3TDS3Section 43B2Deduction2Addition to Income2

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: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Oct 2022AY 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

292 of the paper 7.2 On the other hand the ld. DR mentioned that the explanation of the assessee was accepted by the AO without making any verification and independent enquiry in this regard. So, the entire order related to this particular issue is erroneous. Therefore, the invoking of section 263 of the Act by the PCIT was proper

SH. SURAJ PRAKASH,AMRTITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(5),, AMRITSAR

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

ITA 638/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 638/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(vi)

TDS at full amount, despite the assessee being the owner of one-half share; the balance amount being received only for and on behalf of the other three co-owners, is valid 3 Suraj Parkash v. ITO in law, as explained in CIT v. Ganesh Narayan Brijlal Ltd. [2017] 292 CTR 518 (Cal). 3. Before me it was claimed that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -IV, KAPURTHALA vs. M/S PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK, KAPURTHALA

ITA 731/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Sehgal, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Parvinder Kaur, C.I.T, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43B

292 ITR 470 (Calcutta) whose operation has been stayed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,53,47,000/- made by the AO by disallowing the provision for bad and doubtful debit

MESERS MALWA MOTORS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 vide order dated 17.7.2015. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, a firm in the business of sale and service of vehicles, returned its’ income for the year on 30/9/2012 at Rs.2625, setting off brought forward