Search: TDS | BharatTax

13 results for “TDS”+ Section 226(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 4020 TDS13 Section 19512 Addition to Income12 Section 143(3)11 Deduction11 Disallowance11 Section 14810 Section 194C10 Section 147

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1284/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinamar Gupta, CA (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(3)

226, the DR argued that since TDS was not deducted and no certificate was provided to show that tax was paid by the recipient, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was proper. Regarding cash payments of Rs. 16,33,037/-, the Ld. DR maintained that these violated section 40A(3

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

MUKESH MALHOTRA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIMLA, SHIMLA

M/S STATE BANK OF PATIALA,PATIALA vs. ITO, (TDS), PATIALA

AGRICULTURE SKILL COUNCIL OF INDIA,GURGAON vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH