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.

17 results for “TDS”+ Section 80clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,533Delhi1,504Bangalore769Chennai474Kolkata295Hyderabad236Ahmedabad187Chandigarh154Jaipur151Pune102Raipur99Cochin86Karnataka73Indore49Lucknow40Rajkot40Visakhapatnam36Surat36Nagpur34Agra26Jodhpur25Guwahati22Cuttack20Ranchi17Amritsar17Patna14Dehradun13Jabalpur7SC6Allahabad6Varanasi4Telangana3Uttarakhand2Panaji2Himachal Pradesh1Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 35A20TDS11Section 194C9Addition to Income9Section 143(3)8Section 2508Deduction8Section 80I5Section 10(37)4Section 263

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

section 80 IB of a sum of Rs. 2,11,80,352/-, includes the aforesaid figures of Rs. 10,14,174/- and Rs. 91,014/-. 22.2 We heard the rival submission & observed the documents. There is factual difference in both the orders of the revenue. The ld. CIT-DR only relied on the orders of the revenue. We remit back

THE JHINGRAN COOP MULTIPURPOSE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), JALANDHAR

3
Section 2643
Exemption3
ITA 64/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Amritsar
20 Jun 2023
AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pardeep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

section 80-P(2)(a)(i) must therefore, be construed in the context of the provisions of the law enacted by the state Legislature under which the cooperative society claiming exemption has been formed” [ANNEXURE E] In this regards, it is further humbly submitted that the worthy CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi in the case of the assessee itself

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

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

TDS accordingly as per the provisions of section 1941 of the Act. The nature of income for a same amount in question cannot be treated differently by the deductor and the deductee. This goes to prove that the treatment of rental income as business income is again not correct. 4 In view of the above facts, the rental income

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

TDS accordingly as per the provisions of section 1941 of the Act. The nature of income for a same amount in question cannot be treated differently by the deductor and the deductee. This goes to prove that the treatment of rental income as business income is again not correct. 4 In view of the above facts, the rental income

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

TDS payment with bank, well within stipulated 'due date', however, there was one day delay in debiting amount from assessee's bank account which was apparently due to mistake of banker, no interest could have been levied under section 201(1A) on assessee; interest levied by revenue authorities was to be waived off” 3.5 The ld. AR further relied

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRANS ASIA INDUSTRIES EXPOSITION (P) LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue

ITA 751/ASR/2014[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 194CSection 194H

section 194C. Further, the salaries paid are less than the taxable limit for deduction of tax u/s 192 of the Act. Therefore, this issue of appeal is rightly allowed by the Ld. CIT by directing the AO to delete the liability of Rs 4,18,169/-. As such, no interference is called for. 11. In ground no. 2, the department

THE TRANS ASIAN INDUSTRIES EXPOSITION PVT. LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ASSESING OFFICER(TDS), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue

ITA 753/ASR/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 194CSection 194H

section 194C. Further, the salaries paid are less than the taxable limit for deduction of tax u/s 192 of the Act. Therefore, this issue of appeal is rightly allowed by the Ld. CIT by directing the AO to delete the liability of Rs 4,18,169/-. As such, no interference is called for. 11. In ground no. 2, the department

SHRI SUBASH GUPTA,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 671/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, C. A
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 194Section 250Section 69

Section 69 is upheld. The appellant's explanations lack substantive evidence to overturn the AO's conclusions. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, and the assessment order is sustained.” 5 I.T.A. No. 671/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 6. Now the assessee is before the tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. 7. The Ld. AR in course

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU vs. SHRI MOHD ASLAM BAGGAR, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 104/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(37)Section 45(5)

TDS of Rs. 85,46,350/-, which was claimed exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In response to query raised by A.O. regarding nature of land, the appellant filed details in respect of the land and compensation amount received explaining that the land was agricultural in nature and is situated outside municipal limits. However, the Assessing

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR
Section 194CSection 263

80,160/- has been made in M/s Pioneer Sales. The assessee has not deducted tax u/s 194C of the I.T. Act on payment of Truck Hire Charges and the entire payment has been made in cash. On being questioned it was submitted by the 6 Gurjinder Singh v. Pr.CIT assessee that whenever there was need for transportation of goods

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

ITA 70/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C.A
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

TDS deducted accordingly), which resulted in an apparent non -disclosure of gross contract receipts to the tune of Rs.1.73 crores, as per the return filed. 4. The assessee explained the difference that the said transport bill amount of Rs.1.73 crores has been actually received on 17th April, 2015, and the same has also been considered in the gross receipts

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - TDS-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 646/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 156Section 194CSection 249Section 264Section 5

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-1`, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 644/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 156Section 194CSection 249Section 264Section 5

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 645/ASR/2019[20103-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023

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

Section 156Section 194CSection 249Section 264Section 5

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

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

TDS returns filed by the assessee showing the amount of tax deducted at source on interest paid to the loan creditors. This also proves the genuineness of the loan advanced by Sh. Amandeep Singh to the appellant in the year under consideration. Moreover, the identity of Sh. Amandeep Singh is established as he attended before

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,JK BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS vs. ITO (TDS), SRINAGAR, ITO (TDS), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 238/ASR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

Section 250

80 days in filing the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos. in the case of in I.T.A. No. 237/Asr/2025 and I.T.A. No. 237 & 238/Asr/2025 with respect to Assessment Year 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. Accordingly, these appeals are admitted. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has never been granted a fair opportunity

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,JK BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS vs. ITO (TDS), SRINAGAR, SILK FACTORY ROAD SRINAGAR

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 237/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

Section 250

80 days in filing the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos. in the case of in I.T.A. No. 237/Asr/2025 and I.T.A. No. 237 & 238/Asr/2025 with respect to Assessment Year 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. Accordingly, these appeals are admitted. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has never been granted a fair opportunity