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.

2 results for “TDS”+ Section 801A(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi79Mumbai54Hyderabad54Kolkata30Ahmedabad25Bangalore18Indore13Visakhapatnam12Cuttack7Chennai7Jaipur6Patna6Rajkot5Nagpur3Pune3Raipur2Lucknow2Chandigarh2Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 80I9Section 14A6Section 2635Section 143(3)4Disallowance2Revision u/s 2632

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 693/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri A.K. Sood, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80I

4) and the Assessing Officer on the basis of documents produced before it had rightly arrived at the conclusion that the assessee was eligible to claim deduction under section 801A of the Act. In support of its contention that the view taken by the Ld. counsel for the assessee was a correct and plausible view Ld. counsel for the assessee

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Dahiya, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

4). The Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that review of the order was only on account of change of opinion and could not be exercised under section 263 of the Act. In support of its contention that the issue had been examined by the AO during assessment proceedings the Ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention