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.

45 results for “TDS”+ Section 31(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,615Delhi2,448Bangalore1,255Chennai821Kolkata562Hyderabad391Ahmedabad350Jaipur256Pune235Karnataka232Indore230Cochin202Chandigarh198Raipur160Nagpur89Surat83Rajkot80Visakhapatnam77Lucknow72Cuttack52Amritsar45Ranchi43Jabalpur32Guwahati31Allahabad28Patna26Agra26Jodhpur23Telangana21Dehradun20SC16Panaji11Kerala11Varanasi5Calcutta4Uttarakhand3Rajasthan2Orissa2Himachal Pradesh2J&K1

Key Topics

Addition to Income42Section 250(6)28Section 4026Section 143(3)25Disallowance23TDS20Section 14414Section 14714Section 145(3)14Deduction

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 33/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC mere failure to furnish return within due date as required under section 139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F on person

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3

14
Section 200A12
Section 26312

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 31/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC mere failure to furnish return within due date as required under section 139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F on person

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 32/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC mere failure to furnish return within due date as required under section 139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F on person

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 34/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC mere failure to furnish return within due date as required under section 139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F on person

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

31 Assessment Year: 2018-19 by the assessee before the Assessing Officer by filing a revised computation instead of filing a revised return since the time to file the revised return was lapsed, for claiming to treat the incentive subsidies in question as capital receipts instead of revenue receipts as claimed in original return. The Assessing Officer had denied this

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

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

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

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 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 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

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 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

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

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

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

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)

1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interest on borrowed capital - Assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1986-87 and 1988-89 - Where assessee-trust had taken a loan at 16 per cent from family concerns which was utilized by it for purchase of 4 per cent non-cumulative preference shares, merely because assessee had invested said borrowed amount

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)

1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interest on borrowed capital - Assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1986-87 and 1988-89 - Where assessee-trust had taken a loan at 16 per cent from family concerns which was utilized by it for purchase of 4 per cent non-cumulative preference shares, merely because assessee had invested said borrowed amount

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

TDS on interest 3. Details that all the unsecured loans were raised from family members DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT: 1. Copy of ITR/s of all the family members from whom unsecured loans were raised 2. Complete postal address of all the family members 16 Narinder and Company v. ITO 3. It was also brought to the knowledge

SHRI BALDEV SINGH ,ABOHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (2), FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 48/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(1)Section 250o

31,21,167/- is included in the turnover of Rs. 52,81,344/-. Therefore, merely based on TDS entries given in Form 26AS for deduction of tax u/s. 194J, the adjustment could not have been made without conducting any enquiry, more particularly when the man power supply is not covered as a profession within the meaning of section 44AA

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

31,14.000/- only. Thus, the source of rest of the amount of Rs. 28,86,000/ has remained unexplained. Further, no evidence in respect of transfer of property to Sh. Charanjit Singh (as stated in the statement by Sh. Shinder Pal Singh) is filed and also no evidence in support of the fact that the sale proceeds were not claimed