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.

10 results for “TDS”+ Section 239clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi353Mumbai294Chennai151Bangalore128Kolkata113Karnataka89Jaipur37Hyderabad34Ahmedabad33Indore26Pune23Cuttack10Rajkot9Chandigarh9Raipur6Surat6Panaji6Patna6Agra5Cochin5Amritsar2SC2Lucknow2Visakhapatnam1Dehradun1Jabalpur1Jodhpur1Nagpur1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 1948Addition to Income5Disallowance5Section 404Section 201(1)4TDS4Deduction4Section 2633Section 143(3)3Section 154

M/S. CHANDAN TRANS-CONS PVT. LTD,ROURKELA vs. DCIT,ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 14/CTK/2024[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.14 & 15 /Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009 09 & 2009-2010 M/S. Chandan Trans M/S. Chandan Trans-Cons Pvt Vs. Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Ltd., At-Ff/2, Civil Township, Ff/2, Civil Township, Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaccc 5185 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 194Section 201(1)Section 40

239/- for the assessment year 2008-09 only. For the assessment year 2009-10, the issue has been held in favour of the assessee holding that no TDS is liable to be deducted. This being so, in respect of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.14/CTK/2024 relating to assessment year 2008-09 in view of the second proviso to section

3
Section 40A(2)(b)2
Section 682

M/S. CHANDAN TRANS-CONS PVT. LTD,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 15/CTK/2024[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.14 & 15 /Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009 09 & 2009-2010 M/S. Chandan Trans M/S. Chandan Trans-Cons Pvt Vs. Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Ltd., At-Ff/2, Civil Township, Ff/2, Civil Township, Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaccc 5185 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 194Section 201(1)Section 40

239/- for the assessment year 2008-09 only. For the assessment year 2009-10, the issue has been held in favour of the assessee holding that no TDS is liable to be deducted. This being so, in respect of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.14/CTK/2024 relating to assessment year 2008-09 in view of the second proviso to section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, ROURKELA, ROURKELA, ODISHA vs. CHANDAN TRANSCONS PRIVATE LIMITED, ROURKELA, ODISHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 339/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.14 & 15 /Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009 09 & 2009-2010 M/S. Chandan Trans M/S. Chandan Trans-Cons Pvt Vs. Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Ltd., At-Ff/2, Civil Township, Ff/2, Civil Township, Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaccc 5185 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 194Section 201(1)Section 40

239/- for the assessment year 2008-09 only. For the assessment year 2009-10, the issue has been held in favour of the assessee holding that no TDS is liable to be deducted. This being so, in respect of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.14/CTK/2024 relating to assessment year 2008-09 in view of the second proviso to section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ROURKELA, ROURKELA ODISHA vs. CHANDAN TRANSCONS PVT LTD, ROURKELA ODISHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 340/CTK/2023[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.14 & 15 /Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009 09 & 2009-2010 M/S. Chandan Trans M/S. Chandan Trans-Cons Pvt Vs. Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Ltd., At-Ff/2, Civil Township, Ff/2, Civil Township, Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaccc 5185 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 194Section 201(1)Section 40

239/- for the assessment year 2008-09 only. For the assessment year 2009-10, the issue has been held in favour of the assessee holding that no TDS is liable to be deducted. This being so, in respect of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.14/CTK/2024 relating to assessment year 2008-09 in view of the second proviso to section

M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT-(TDS), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 323/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Grid Corporation Of Orissa Grid Corporation Of Orissa Vs. Acit (Tds), Acit (Tds), Ltd., Ltd., Gridco Gridco House, House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal Rao /P.Venugopal Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.7.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.0035/17-18 For The Assessment Year The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, Ld Ar Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)

239) held that where Assessing Officer issued impugned notice under section 154 on ground that deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) was to be restricted to provisions of doubtful debt made by assessee in financials, since nature of mistake proposed to be rectified was regarding amount of bad and doubtful debts debited to provision for bad and doubtful debt

RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 358/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 68

TDS for Rs. 21,64,220/- 10. Ld DR, relied on the following case laws with respect to this ground: i) Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Chennai Properties 239 ITR 435 . Relevant para 13 and 14 of the said order are as under: 13. Learned counsel for the Revenue also referred to the decisions of the Bombay High Court

TRIJAL ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 185/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

239 (All), wherein, it has been held that “whether where deposits had been made by partners on very first day when partnership firm came into existence, onus was on the partners to explain the source of deposits made and if they failed to do so, amount could be added in their hands only and not in the hands

ITO, ANGUL WARD, , ANGUL vs. M/S. NCC SMASL JRT(JV),, ANGUL

ITA 99/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor and Bibhu Jain, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 40A(2)(b)

TDS was claimed. The case was taken up for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed direct expenses of Rs.25,97,41,438/- i.e. the amount equivalent to the gross receipts of the assessee-JV. The said amount was paid to three Joint Ventures constituents who had executed the work

ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL vs. NCC-SMASL-JRT(JV), ANGUL

ITA 39/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor and Bibhu Jain, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 40A(2)(b)

TDS was claimed. The case was taken up for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed direct expenses of Rs.25,97,41,438/- i.e. the amount equivalent to the gross receipts of the assessee-JV. The said amount was paid to three Joint Ventures constituents who had executed the work

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,MAYURBHANJ vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 195/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Bivas Ranjan Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 69

239/- (Rs. 1,10,29,608 – Rs.8,82,369)is prime-facie required to be added to the total income. Thus, the manner in which the Assessing Officer completed the assessment without proper enquiry or verification has rendered his assessment order both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In view of the above circumstances you are directed