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.

28 results for “TDS”+ Section 80G(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai116Delhi97Bangalore51Ahmedabad44Chennai28Chandigarh28Kolkata24Pune17Jaipur16Hyderabad11Indore9Rajkot8Lucknow8Surat4Agra3Amritsar3Raipur3Ranchi3Allahabad2SC2Jodhpur2Cuttack1Visakhapatnam1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 13(3)24TDS18Exemption11Section 80G5Section 82Section 12A2

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1066/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 8Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was rejected. 2. The assessee is a company incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, and claims to be engaged in charitable activities relating to skill development in the agriculture sector. The assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration under section 80G. During the course

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S DISTRICT MANAGER PUNJAB, SANGRUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 1313/CHANDI/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

DCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE GRAINS PROCUREMENT CORP. LTD., FATEHGARH SAHIB

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 316/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

DCIT, TDS, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE GRAINS PROCUREMENT CORP. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 319/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

DCIT, TDS, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLY CORPN. LTD., SIRHIND

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 320/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

ITO (TDS), PATIALA vs. THE DISTT. MANAGER, FATEHGARH SAHIB

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 1310/CHANDI/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE GRAIN PROCUREMENT CORP. LTD., BARNALA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 162/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (F&A) (PERSONAL RESPONSIBLE),SHIMLA vs. ITO (TDS), SHIMLA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 1424/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY,ROPAR vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 669/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

ITO (TDS-2), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE GRAINS PROCUREMENT CORP. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 686/CHANDI/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

DCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE GRAINS PROCUREMENT CORP. LTD., FATEHGARH SAHIB

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 317/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

DCIT, TDS, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE GRAINS PROCUREMENT CORP. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 318/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S DISTRICT MANAGER PUNJAB,

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 1314/CHANDI/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

ITO (TDS-2), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE GRAINS PROCUREMENT CORP. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 685/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

ITO, CHANDIGARH vs. THE MANAGER DISTT. OFFICE,, MOHALI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 1241/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

ITO (TDS), PATIALA vs. THE DISTT. MANAGER, FATEHGARH SAHIB

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 1309/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S DISTRICT MANAGER PUNJAB, SANGRUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 1312/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (F&A) (PERSONAL RESPONSIBLE),SHIMLA vs. ITO (TDS), SHIMLA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

ITA 1425/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR vs. M/S AUSTEE HYDRO POWER & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD., BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 837/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Austees Hydro Power & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, (Hp). Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M & The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Austees Hydro Power & Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Construction Company (P) Ltd., (Hp). Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Gulshan Raj, CIT(DR)

5. To sub-contractors/ Transporters 3,72,82,228/- Total 6,49,93,168/- 7 & A.Y.2012-13 8. The Director of the company Sh. Joginder Singh Thakur was asked to furnish documentary evidence i.e. bills & vouchers for purchase of diesel. In response, it was stated that the diesel was purchased and got filled in the vehicles of the sub-contractors/ transporters

M/S AUSTEES HYDRO POWER & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 729/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Austees Hydro Power & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, (Hp). Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M & The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Austees Hydro Power & Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Construction Company (P) Ltd., (Hp). Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Gulshan Raj, CIT(DR)

5. To sub-contractors/ Transporters 3,72,82,228/- Total 6,49,93,168/- 7 & A.Y.2012-13 8. The Director of the company Sh. Joginder Singh Thakur was asked to furnish documentary evidence i.e. bills & vouchers for purchase of diesel. In response, it was stated that the diesel was purchased and got filled in the vehicles of the sub-contractors/ transporters