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.

128 results for “TDS”+ Section 8clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,340Delhi5,334Bangalore2,567Chennai2,021Kolkata1,446Pune1,065Hyderabad764Ahmedabad731Indore563Patna547Cochin481Jaipur473Raipur445Chandigarh355Karnataka349Nagpur326Surat262Visakhapatnam234Rajkot180Lucknow150Amritsar128Cuttack105Jodhpur100Dehradun95Panaji65Agra62Ranchi62Guwahati61Jabalpur59Telangana51Allahabad38SC23Varanasi17Kerala15Calcutta14Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan7Punjab & Haryana3J&K3Uttarakhand3Orissa3Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 234E90Section 200A74Addition to Income68TDS60Section 14847Section 4046Section 25045Section 143(3)43Disallowance35Section 250(6)

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

8)(c)(ii) of the Act. making it ineligible for claiming deduction u/s 35AD of the Act and thus, there arised no question I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 5 of computing any loss as per the provisions of section 35AD of the Act. In the absence of any loss, there arised no question

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

Showing 1–20 of 128 · Page 1 of 7

29
Deduction25
Section 14423

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 104/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

8)(c)(ii) of the Act. making it ineligible for claiming deduction u/s 35AD of the Act and thus, there arised no question I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 5 of computing any loss as per the provisions of section 35AD of the Act. In the absence of any loss, there arised no question

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

TDS) adjustment in respect of the statement filed by the assessee with regard to tax deducted at source by levying fee under Section 234E of the Act. However, after if assessee fails to pay the fee for the period of delay, then the assessing authority has all the powers to levy fee while processing the statement under section

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

8. The ld. AR further respectfullyrelied on the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Court which are as follows: - 8.1. The relincewas placed on following judgments related nature of income as capital receipt:- 8.1.1. Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd.v.Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, [2013] 40 taxmann.com 171 (Chennai - Trib.) “15. This leaves us with the issue regarding addition

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

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

M/S. IQBAL MEMORIAL TRUST ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

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

ITA 68/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 12ASection 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)(a)Section 200A(1)(b)Section 234E

TDS “8. statement and issuance of intimation under section 200A in respect thereof, an adjustment could also be made in respect

MESERS SPEED SURYA MOVIES ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 417/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act (No. 2) 2014 is applicable retrospectively. 8. In view of the amended provisions, the expenses incurred by the assessee without deducting the TDS

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

section 234C - Held, yes Circular & Notification : CBDT’s Circular No. 261, dated 8- 8-1979.” 2. Moody's Analytics Knowledge Services (India) (P.) Ltd. v.Income-tax Officer (TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , HOSHIAPUR vs. SHRI HARPINDER SINGH GILL , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 163/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 96

section 96 of the RFCTLAAR Act, the compensation received is eligible for exemption from Income-tax without considering the fact that assessee has acted on a pre- designed and manipulative manner in order to make evasion of taxes and hatched a conspiracy for abetment of tax evasion by way of colourful device. Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

ITA 29/ASR/2021[2014-15.Q-4]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249Section 250

TDS u/s 200(A) of the Act is a vitiated order having been passed in an arbitrary manner and is thus bad in law and void ab- initio and also the fees of Rs.18,400/- levied therein is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 8. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

ITA 30/ASR/2021[2014-15,Q-4]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249Section 250

TDS u/s 200(A) of the Act is a vitiated order having been passed in an arbitrary manner and is thus bad in law and void ab- initio and also the fees of Rs.18,400/- levied therein is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 8. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

ITA 26/ASR/2021[2013-14,Q-2]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249Section 250

TDS u/s 200(A) of the Act is a vitiated order having been passed in an arbitrary manner and is thus bad in law and void ab- initio and also the fees of Rs.18,400/- levied therein is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 8. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

ITA 28/ASR/2021[2013-14.Q-4]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249Section 250

TDS u/s 200(A) of the Act is a vitiated order having been passed in an arbitrary manner and is thus bad in law and void ab- initio and also the fees of Rs.18,400/- levied therein is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 8. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

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

ITA 189/ASR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

8 Assessment Year: 2015-16 deduction of TDS amount to Rs.1,47,454/- is not under purview of Section 234E

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

8. Similarly, the judgement given by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devson Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt./Dy.CIT “S.A Builders Lt vs. CIT”, (2006) 206 CTR (SC) 631: (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC), on the issue of commercial expediency is of no help to the appellant assessee because, the issue involved is claim of sales commission without 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

8. Similarly, the judgement given by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devson Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt./Dy.CIT “S.A Builders Lt vs. CIT”, (2006) 206 CTR (SC) 631: (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC), on the issue of commercial expediency is of no help to the appellant assessee because, the issue involved is claim of sales commission without TDS

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

section 44AD either at 6% or 8% as the case may be, as claimed by the appellant does not arise at this stage, in the absence of discharge of the burden of proof by the assessee explaining the circumstances under which the omission to record receipts and claim tax credit with simultaneous omission to record the expenditure as well. Therefore

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 KEWAL KRISHAN,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, ZIRA

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

ITA 541/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Kuldip Singh Sra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 28(2)Section 3ASection 3A(1)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 57

section 3A (1) i.e. 05/07/2013 to the date of Announcement of Award i.e. 30/09/2014 [453 days] was interested and not enhanced compensation or solatium, even though the words used in the award "additional compensation". Now, since the amount of Rs.19,80,064/- was interest, even TDS of Rs.4,07,893/- was effected on the said amount @ 20%+3% CESS. 8