Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

55 results for “TDS”+ Section 200(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi894 Mumbai798 Bangalore781 Patna476 Pune464 Chennai388 Hyderabad151 Kolkata132 Jaipur116 Raipur106 Ahmedabad95 Nagpur82 Cochin69 Chandigarh55 Indore38 Lucknow37 Agra32 Karnataka30 Rajkot27 Dehradun25 Visakhapatnam18 Ranchi18 Amritsar15 Panaji14 Jodhpur13 Surat13 Guwahati9 SC5 Allahabad3 Cuttack3 Jabalpur3 Orissa1 Telangana1 Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 26385 Section 143(3)27 Section 153A20 Section 25316 Section 143(2)15 Section 142(1)14 TDS14 Limitation/Time-bar14 Section 153D13 Addition to Income

SH. SAURABH KAUSHIK,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 312/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal., CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 194ISection 195Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements as required U/s 200(3) of the Act, which reads as under: “Section 200- Duty of person deducting

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3

13

Deemed Dividend9

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

TDS particulars was wholly unjustified. [Para 7] As regards second ground for reopening the assessment, the dividend income received during the year was claimed as exempt and the same was accepted in the assessment order passed under section 143(3). The reason for reopening the assessment was that in the absence of particulars it could not be said that

STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE(15875),PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 653/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS under section 200 (3) of the Act may kindly be accepted. The same was objected to by the Ld. DR on the pretext

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 622/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS under section 200 (3) of the Act may kindly be accepted. The same was objected to by the Ld. DR on the pretext

STATE BANK OF INDIA, SAMB BRANCH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 626/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS under section 200 (3) of the Act may kindly be accepted. The same was objected to by the Ld. DR on the pretext

STATE BANK OF INDIA,AMRITSAR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INDIA (IN-SITU), LUDHIANA

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 643/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS under section 200 (3) of the Act may kindly be accepted. The same was objected to by the Ld. DR on the pretext

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-1),, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 623/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS under section 200 (3) of the Act may kindly be accepted. The same was objected to by the Ld. DR on the pretext

STATE BANK OF INDIA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 493/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS under section 200 (3) of the Act may kindly be accepted. The same was objected to by the Ld. DR on the pretext

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 173/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS under section 200 (3) of the Act may kindly be accepted. The same was objected to by the Ld. DR on the pretext

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS under section 200 (3) of the Act may kindly be accepted. The same was objected to by the Ld. DR on the pretext

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 375/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS under section 200 (3) of the Act may kindly be accepted. The same was objected to by the Ld. DR on the pretext

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

ITA 886/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Mangal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250(6)Section 69C

3 raised by the assessee is allowed. Ground No. 4 32. The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the addition of Rs. 2,77,65,510/- made u/s 69C on account of alleged unexplained purchases from Garg Woollen Mills (Prop. Jagmohan Garg) and World International Yarns was wholly unjustified and based merely on third-party replies received u/s 133(6) without

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

TDS. Now, evidently, the department cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, as has wrongly been done in the present case. The following are some of the decisions on this issue : 1. Union of India Vs British India Corporation 268 ITR 481 (S.C) 2. 217 Taxmann 247 (Guj) CIT vs. Jayantkumar Motichand Doshi 3. 217 Taxman

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

TDS. Now, evidently, the department cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, as has wrongly been done in the present case. The following are some of the decisions on this issue : 1. Union of India Vs British India Corporation 268 ITR 481 (S.C) 2. 217 Taxmann 247 (Guj) CIT vs. Jayantkumar Motichand Doshi 3. 217 Taxman

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

TDS. Now, evidently, the department cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, as has wrongly been done in the present case. The following are some of the decisions on this issue : 1. Union of India Vs British India Corporation 268 ITR 481 (S.C) 2. 217 Taxmann 247 (Guj) CIT vs. Jayantkumar Motichand Doshi 3. 217 Taxman

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

ITA 772/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 69A

section dealing with deduction of TDS on supply of foodgrains. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) had erred in upholding the finding of Ld. AO that total sales to DFSC of Rs. 3,19,30,200

GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PATIALA

ITA 476/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: ShriRohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253Section 263Section 44ASection 80T

TDS and TCS, the assessee has shown interest received from land acquisition at Rs. 2,79,08,506.00 and compensation received under land acquisition at Rs, 4,86,426.00, both aggregated to Rs. 2,83,94,932.00. This has been claimed exempt U/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. That as per Annexure to notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

ITA 360/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

section 153C in the case of the assessee after duly\nrecording satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee and represented its\nundisclosed 11 income. In the absence of such compliance, the assessment so framed is without\njurisdiction and liable to be quashed.\n6. The Assessing Officer has relied upon various documents and digital data seized during\nthe search

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

ITA 356/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

section 153C in the case of the assessee after duly\nrecording satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee and represented its\nundisclosed 11 income. In the absence of such compliance, the assessment so framed is without\njurisdiction and liable to be quashed.\n6. The Assessing Officer has relied upon various documents and digital data seized during\nthe search

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

ITA 358/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

section 153C in the case of the assessee after duly\nrecording satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessee and represented its\nundisclosed 11 income. In the absence of such compliance, the assessment so framed is without\njurisdiction and liable to be quashed.\n6. The Assessing Officer has relied upon various documents and digital data seized during\nthe search