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.

161 results for “TDS”+ Section 58clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,460 Mumbai1,357 Bangalore673 Chennai461 Hyderabad346 Ahmedabad314 Kolkata311 Cochin210 Indore191 Jaipur182 Raipur172 Chandigarh161 Karnataka148 Pune142 Visakhapatnam80 Lucknow70 Cuttack64 Jabalpur64 Surat48 Dehradun36 Ranchi32 Rajkot31 Agra20 Nagpur20 Allahabad20 Amritsar16 Guwahati14 Telangana13 Patna12 Varanasi8 SC7 Jodhpur4 Calcutta4 Panaji4 Uttarakhand2 Punjab & Haryana2 Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 26359 Addition to Income41 Section 143(3)37 Section 40A(3)30 Section 153A29 Section 14824 Section 13223 Disallowance18 Deduction16 Section 143(2)

ITO (TDS), PATIALA vs. M/S S.A. SINGH & CO., BHAWANIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 986/CHANDI/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10(24)Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 133ASection 194CSection 194C(6)Section 2(31)Section 201(1)

TDS under section 201(1) and demand of Rs. 58,27,591/- was determined under section 201(1) on account

Showing 1–20 of 161 · Page 1 of 9

...

14

Limitation/Time-bar11

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1232/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sanat KapoorFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 90

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income received by the assessee from M/s Omaxe Ltd. cannot be stated to be income from house property as there is no construction/ complete property and the question of letting

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1235/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanat KapoorFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 90

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income received by the assessee from M/s Omaxe Ltd. cannot be stated to be income from house property as there is no construction/ complete property and the question of letting

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1231/CHANDI/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Sanat KapoorFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 90

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income received by the assessee from M/s Omaxe Ltd. cannot be stated to be income from house property as there is no construction/ complete property and the question of letting

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1233/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanat KapoorFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 90

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income received by the assessee from M/s Omaxe Ltd. cannot be stated to be income from house property as there is no construction/ complete property and the question of letting

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1236/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sanat KapoorFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 90

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income received by the assessee from M/s Omaxe Ltd. cannot be stated to be income from house property as there is no construction/ complete property and the question of letting

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1234/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanat KapoorFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 90

TDS deducted by M/s Omaxe Ltd. @ 15% as per Article-12 of India and U.K DTAA r/w Section 90 of the Act. 3.1 As per the AO, the income received by the assessee from M/s Omaxe Ltd. cannot be stated to be income from house property as there is no construction/ complete property and the question of letting

M/S KAPSONS FASHION PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1014/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1014 To 1016/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR

TDS was deductible on total payment made to Rohan studios and every payment made was not to be considered separately as pleaded by the assessee. The order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), is, we find, not a reasoned and speaking order on the issue. Since the facts pleaded by the assessee need verification, we consider it fit to restore

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 339/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

58,34,30,328 made under provisions of section\n11(3)(c) may kindly be ordered to be deleted.\n6.\nThat the Ld. First Appellate Authority has erred both\non facts and law in not allowing the statutory\nreduction of 15% allowable under section 11(2) of the\nIncome tax Act, thus making whole of the receipts\namounting to Rs.4

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

58,34,30,328 made under provisions of section\n11(3)(c) may kindly be ordered to be deleted.\n6.\nThat the Ld. First Appellate Authority has erred both\non facts and law in not allowing the statutory\nreduction of 15% allowable under section 11(2) of the\nIncome tax Act, thus making whole of the receipts\namounting to Rs.4

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 63/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

58,34,30,328 made under provisions of section\n11(3)(c) may kindly be ordered to be deleted.\n\n6.\nThat the Ld. First Appellate Authority has erred both\non facts and law in not allowing the statutory\nreduction of 15% allowable under section 11(2) of the\nIncome tax Act, thus making whole of the receipts\namounting

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

58,34,30,328 made under provisions of section\n11(3)(c) may kindly be ordered to be deleted.\n\n6.\nThat the Ld. First Appellate Authority has erred both\non facts and law in not allowing the statutory\nreduction of 15% allowable under section 11(2) of the\nIncome tax Act, thus making whole of the receipts\namounting

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

ITA 596/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

ITA 172/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

ITA 992/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

ITA 565/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

ITA 635/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

ITA 1112/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

ITA 876/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

ITA 531/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

TDS) by the payer at the time of making payment for compulsory acquisition of immovable property other than agricultural land. It was further contended that in the case of Hari Singh v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)the issue of chargeability of interest to tax was not the lis before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The only