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.

18 results for “TDS”+ Section 35clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,336Mumbai2,133Bangalore1,267Chennai715Kolkata463Hyderabad344Raipur326Ahmedabad299Indore230Jaipur228Chandigarh208Cochin193Karnataka169Pune159Surat85Visakhapatnam72Rajkot72Lucknow69Dehradun55Cuttack54Nagpur40Ranchi36Jabalpur34Guwahati31Jodhpur26Patna23Agra20Allahabad19Amritsar18Panaji17Telangana14SC12Varanasi11Kerala9Calcutta3Uttarakhand2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Addition to Income15TDS11Section 143(3)9Section 143(1)9Deduction9Section 2507Section 80P(2)(a)6Section 80I5Natural Justice5Section 2(22)(e)

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

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 the head income from

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

4
Section 1544
Section 206C4
ITA 483/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Amritsar
02 Mar 2022
AY 2015-16

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

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

TDS was deducted at source individually by PUNGRAIN and not from AOP M/s Agarwal associates as Surinder Kumar & Ors v. ITO strongly abjured by CIT appeal on page number three and four of the impugned order. He also argued that the rental income was again assessed in the hands of M/s Agra associates and the matter is pending in appeal

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

TDS was deducted at source individually by PUNGRAIN and not from AOP M/s Agarwal associates as Surinder Kumar & Ors v. ITO strongly abjured by CIT appeal on page number three and four of the impugned order. He also argued that the rental income was again assessed in the hands of M/s Agra associates and the matter is pending in appeal

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

TDS was deducted at source individually by PUNGRAIN and not from AOP M/s Agarwal associates as Surinder Kumar & Ors v. ITO strongly abjured by CIT appeal on page number three and four of the impugned order. He also argued that the rental income was again assessed in the hands of M/s Agra associates and the matter is pending in appeal

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

TDS was deducted at source individually by PUNGRAIN and not from AOP M/s Agarwal associates as Surinder Kumar & Ors v. ITO strongly abjured by CIT appeal on page number three and four of the impugned order. He also argued that the rental income was again assessed in the hands of M/s Agra associates and the matter is pending in appeal

SH. SADA RAM CHAWLA,TARN TARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), TARNTARAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 479/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Nipun Khanna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mehra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40a

section 194H and since no tax was deducted by disallowing the same u/s. 40a(ia) whereas the Appellant is not having any payer and payee relationship with the retailers as retailers are not providing any services to the company and not to the appellant. The Appellant is only transferring/redistributing money received from Reliance as per their directions 3. That

INDERJIT SINGH,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PHAGAWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 369/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Sharma, C.A
Section 143(1)Section 154oSection 250

section 199 of the Act 61. 7 I.T.A. No. 369/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 13. From the factual aspect of the matter, it is seen that the gross contract receipts from Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. amounting to Rs.9,44,655/- has already been disclosed by the partnership firm Golden Auto Industries under PAN:[AAKFG 9983E]. On the other hand

SHRI HARINDER PAL SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 123/ASR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 153ASection 154Section 205Section 250

TDS of Rs. 6.66 lakhs on the ground that I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2022 5 Assessment Year: 2015-16 such amount was not deposited by the employer. This Court in such background after referring to Section 205 of the Act held and observed.” 3.2 The ld. counsel for the assessee further relied on the order of the Karnataka High Court in the case

F I L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

The appeal of the assessee is disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 72/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 40Section 80I

35,43,942/- u/s 80IB(11A) of the Income Tax Act on old CA unit. 4 FIL Industries P. Ltd. v. Asstt.CIT 4.1 The ld. counsel for the appellant has submitted that the similar issue regarding the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act, on the identical facts in the assessee’s own case has been

PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,KAPURTHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 375/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A
Section 206CSection 206C(7)Section 249(2)Section 250

section, the assessee has been held to be assessee in default u/s 206C of the Act for non-collection of TCS, resulting in total TCS default of Rs.8.58 lakhs (including interest u/s 206C(7) of the Act as applicable). 3 I.T.A. No. 375/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 5. The order passed by the ITO (TDS) dated 10.02.2021 has been carried

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

35 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds which are reproduced as below: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred on facts and law in confirming the addition of Rs.8,86,320/- made by the DCIT,CPC, Bengaluru while processing the return u/s 143(1) vide order dated 11.12.2018 and computing the income

MESERS VETERAN ENGINEERS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ZAKURA,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD 3 (3), SRINAGAR

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

ITA 342/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 44A

section 44AD of the Act. The ld. AR argued that the ld. AO has enhanced turnover of the assessee by Rs.7,77,499/- and made addition of Rs.62,200/- by applying net profit rate of 8% of the said enhanced turnover computing the contract receipt of Rs.19,35,550/- as per Form 26AS without bringing any corroborative material on record

MALWA CO-OP L & C SOCIETY LTD,MUKTSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II(2), MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 39/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250(6)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(vi)

35 of APB with details calculation of turnover of assessee. The calculation of gross receipt is extracted as follows: 4 Malwa Coop. L & C Society Ltd. v. ITO “Total contract receipts during the year 8589152.00 Less:- Deduction out of Gross Contract Receipts during the relevant A.Y. 2010-11 TDS 182181.00 VAT 343564.00 Security 425156.00 L. Cess 85886.00 Other Deduction

MESERS G.G CONTINEENTAL TRADES PVT.LTD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA

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

ITA 189/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

TDS I.T.A. Nos.189/Asr/2018&513/Asr/2019 19 Assessment Years: 2014-15& 2016-17 was deducted, and the Certificate was also duly annexed with APB. The entire amount was transacted by both the companies for business exigencies. 12. The ld. DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and also placed that the issue was not covered

MEASAGE G. G OILS & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , BATHINDA

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

ITA 513/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

TDS I.T.A. Nos.189/Asr/2018&513/Asr/2019 19 Assessment Years: 2014-15& 2016-17 was deducted, and the Certificate was also duly annexed with APB. The entire amount was transacted by both the companies for business exigencies. 12. The ld. DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and also placed that the issue was not covered

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

Section 139 (5) of the Act was filed before the Assessing Officer. We answer both the question Nos. 1 and 2 in negative and in favour of assessee”. Ground No. 3 9. Ground No. 3, not pressed. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 32 Assessment Year: 2018-19 10. The ld. AR argued that the assessee paidcommission during financial year

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

35,71,428/- as in FY 2013-14 (above),, therefore the cash receipts of Rs 164,864/- , Rs 226,902/-, Rs 263,318/-, Rs 60676/- and Rs 135,919/- during December 2012 and January 2013 respectively as given in the details of opening cash balance as on 1.4.2013 is accepted. Therefore the opening cash balance in the hands

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR vs. MEASAGE OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDKOT

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

ITA 407/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

TDS was made by the Ld. AO in accordance with the reporting as per Tax Audit Report which was not added back in Computation of Income at the time of filing of Return of Income. I.T.A. No.407/Asr/2019 5 Assessment Year: 2015-16 3.3. Further, the disallowance amount of Rs. 5,28,924/- was made on account of depreciation claimed