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.

50 results for “TDS”+ Section 31clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,485Delhi2,430Bangalore1,219Chennai805Kolkata555Hyderabad517Ahmedabad512Pune409Jaipur308Indore285Cochin269Chandigarh254Karnataka232Raipur176Visakhapatnam127Cuttack100Nagpur95Rajkot94Surat88Lucknow76Amritsar50Ranchi43Guwahati40Jodhpur33Jabalpur33Agra31Allahabad29Patna25Telangana21Dehradun21SC16Panaji13Kerala11Varanasi5Calcutta4Uttarakhand3Rajasthan2Himachal Pradesh2Orissa2J&K1

Key Topics

Addition to Income44Section 4038Section 250(6)29Section 143(3)28Disallowance26TDS22Deduction17Section 14414Section 14714Section 145(3)

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Appeals are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 111/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

31-10-2017 01.11.2017 18.11.2017 1 200.00 2nd 27EQ 15.10.2017 28.10.2017 03.11.2017 2400.00 12 4th 24Q 15.05.2018 31.08.2018 09.10.2018 92 18400.00 4th 26Q 15.05.2018 19.06.2018 02.07.2018 19 3800.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF LATE FEE Rs 25,200/- Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) 3. Thus, TDS-CPC has imposed a late fee u/s 234E amounting

SPARROW SECURITY SERVICES ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JAMMU

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3

14
Section 200A12
Section 26312

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

ITA 40/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 250oSection 36Section 43B

31-36 8282075.79 3793381 3793381 695314 ESI April Date of Total Employee Employer Page No clearance 83 May 18.07.2017 75111 20251 54860 82 June 18.07.2017 146826 39591 107235 81 July 13.09.2017 167769 45240 122529 80 August 13.09.2017 173639 46800 126839 79 September 20.10.2017 171325 46176 125149 78 October 21.11.2017 180496 48672 131824 77 November 25.01.2018 181653 48984 132669 76 December

THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF ICOME-TAX, JAMMU

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

ITA 241/ASR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. N.K.Choudhryassessment Year:2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (C.A)For Respondent: Sh. M. P. Singh (CIT- DR)
Section 40

TDS has been paid; that section 40(a)(ia) starts with non-obstante clause, which is to the effect that section 40 overrides the provisions of sections 30 to 38; that the amounts which may otherwise be allowable as business expenditure as per the provisions of sections 30 to 38 and which is chargeable to tax in the hands

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 40A(3). The ld. Counsel argued & placed the fact that assessee having factory in remote area in village Bholuwal, where no banking facility is available. In additional evidence the assessee has filed Certificate of Panchayat with English version & Affidavit of director of company which are enclosed as Page 31-33 of Paper book. By the additional evidence

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

In the result the ground no

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 40A(3). The ld. Counsel argued & placed the fact that assessee having factory in remote area in village Bholuwal, where no banking facility is available. In additional evidence the assessee has filed Certificate of Panchayat with English version & Affidavit of director of company which are enclosed as Page 31-33 of Paper book. By the additional evidence

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 296/ASR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto service Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) which is different from the present case as in that case issue of construction of New Building in place of old building was involved. Moreover

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the ground No

ITA 330/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto service Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) which is different from the present case as in that case issue of construction of New Building in place of old building was involved. Moreover

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 320/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto service Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) which is different from the present case as in that case issue of construction of New Building in place of old building was involved. Moreover

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU, SRINAGAR vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 790/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto service Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) which is different from the present case as in that case issue of construction of New Building in place of old building was involved. Moreover

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 319/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto service Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) which is different from the present case as in that case issue of construction of New Building in place of old building was involved. Moreover

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 297/ASR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto service Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) which is different from the present case as in that case issue of construction of New Building in place of old building was involved. Moreover

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX , CIRCLE -1,, JAMMU vs. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 637/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

31,428/- on account of depreciation of Wooden Partition by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto service Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) which is different from the present case as in that case issue of construction of New Building in place of old building was involved. Moreover

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-IV,, PATHANKOT vs. THE GURDASPUR CENTRAL CO. OPBANK LTD, GURDASPUR

In the result, the ground no

ITA 542/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenaandsh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 43D

TDS are not attracted on the supply of pamphlets, banners and other stationery items to the assessee as the same does not fall in the definition of “work” by virtue of sub clause (e) of clause (iv) of the explanation of section 194C. The disallowance of Rs 34,90,828/- u/s 40a(ia) is therefore deleted.” The ld. Counsel further

SHRI RANJEET SINGH,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 91/ASR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 96

31,43,187/- Less: TDS 35,695/- Total amount received 31.07.491/- 1.1 The assessee filed his ITR for the AY 2016-17 on 21-12-2016 showing total income at Rs. 29,77,350/- including long term capital gains of Rs. 26,62,987/-. Thereafter, the assessee revised the ITR on 27.05.2017 showing total income at Rs.3,39,360/- under

SHRI SAHIL BANSAL ,RAMPURA PHUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (3), BATHINDA

In the result, all these appeals of the assesses are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated as above

ITA 483/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR

31 to 49). 5. The AR contended that the land was purchased in individual capacity by the co-owners having separate property numbers and that too panel assessments were made that is one assessment was made with regards to rental income in and the other in the hands of the AOP M/s Aggarwal associates. He further contended that the TDS

SHRI SURINDER KUMAR ,RAMPURA PHUL vs. INCOME TAX OFICER,WARD 1 (3), BATHINDA

In the result, all these appeals of the assesses are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated as above

ITA 484/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR

31 to 49). 5. The AR contended that the land was purchased in individual capacity by the co-owners having separate property numbers and that too panel assessments were made that is one assessment was made with regards to rental income in and the other in the hands of the AOP M/s Aggarwal associates. He further contended that the TDS

SHRIMATI SUDESH RANI ,RAMPURA PHUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (3), BATHINDA

In the result, all these appeals of the assesses are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated as above

ITA 482/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR

31 to 49). 5. The AR contended that the land was purchased in individual capacity by the co-owners having separate property numbers and that too panel assessments were made that is one assessment was made with regards to rental income in and the other in the hands of the AOP M/s Aggarwal associates. He further contended that the TDS

SHRI SURINDER KUMAR ,RAMPURA PHUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (3), BATHINDA

In the result, all these appeals of the assesses are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated as above

ITA 571/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR

31 to 49). 5. The AR contended that the land was purchased in individual capacity by the co-owners having separate property numbers and that too panel assessments were made that is one assessment was made with regards to rental income in and the other in the hands of the AOP M/s Aggarwal associates. He further contended that the TDS

DE vs. ON PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMUVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 549/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Dewan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR

31 1/- paid to employees of the company viz. Estate Officer, Store Keeper, Cashier, G.D. Clerk, Labour, Computer Operator, Accountant and Peon being not directly relating to Sales Department. Devson Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt./Dy.CIT 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the Sales Commission has been paid to the employees of the company

DE vs. ON PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMUVS.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 204/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Dewan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR

31 1/- paid to employees of the company viz. Estate Officer, Store Keeper, Cashier, G.D. Clerk, Labour, Computer Operator, Accountant and Peon being not directly relating to Sales Department. Devson Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt./Dy.CIT 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the Sales Commission has been paid to the employees of the company