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 46Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi296Mumbai248Kolkata98Chennai81Ahmedabad69Hyderabad57Jaipur43Bangalore37Lucknow30Cuttack28Rajkot23Indore22Pune21Chandigarh20Raipur14Visakhapatnam12Surat11Patna8Jodhpur5Jabalpur5Panaji5Cochin4Nagpur4Amritsar4Allahabad3Guwahati3Agra2Telangana1Varanasi1

Key Topics

TDS4Addition to Income4Section 2502Section 1472Section 1482Section 194C2Section 52Section 2482

SH. AMRINDER SINGH DHIMAN,NAKODAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE PHAGWARA, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 584/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, Sr DR
Section 40

Section 40a(ia) states that any amount on which tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid then such sum shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head 'profits of business or profession'. d. In the present case, TDS was to be deducted

M/S. CHAUDHARY ENTERPRISES,,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 578/ASR/2013[2008-09]Status: Disposed
ITAT Amritsar
07 Feb 2019
AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 578/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwini Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 02.12.2010 for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. 2. The first issue raised in appeal is qua an addition in the sum of Rs.4,14,900/- on account of difference in the charges receivable as per the assessee’s accounts and that as per the tax deduction statement

SECURE 1 SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD-4(2), JALANDHAR

Accordingly ground no. 05 to 07 raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed

ITA 46/ASR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None
Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 248Section 250Section 5

46A of the IT Rules, 1962. 4. Brief facts emerging from the records are that the assessee company was engaged in the business of providing security services to various clients and in absence of any return being filed in regular course, proceedings were initiated u/s 148 on 31.03.2021 (after necessary approval) on the basis of information contained in the ITBA

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR vs. SECURE 1 SERVICES PVT. LTD., JALANDHAR

Accordingly ground no. 05 to 07 raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed

ITA 247/ASR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None
Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 248Section 250Section 5

46A of the IT Rules, 1962. 4. Brief facts emerging from the records are that the assessee company was engaged in the business of providing security services to various clients and in absence of any return being filed in regular course, proceedings were initiated u/s 148 on 31.03.2021 (after necessary approval) on the basis of information contained in the ITBA