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.

13 results for “TDS”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi190Mumbai185Ahmedabad69Cochin59Jaipur53Bangalore45Chennai44Chandigarh28Surat23Hyderabad23Kolkata22Pune22Indore20Rajkot18Guwahati15Agra14Lucknow13Cuttack13Amritsar11Raipur11Patna9Visakhapatnam7Nagpur6Varanasi3Jodhpur2Jabalpur2Allahabad1Calcutta1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 194A15Section 4014Section 194A(3)10Addition to Income10Disallowance9TDS8Section 69A7Section 271(1)(c)7Deduction6Section 271(1)(b)

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 84/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR/S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)Section 40

TDS. However, since the assessee is a co- operative bank, therefore, this exemption is not applicable to it. He further stated that from 1.6.2015, this anomaly has been removed and it is clearly provided that the cooperative banks are not eligible for this exemption. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee bank has not deducted tax at source on the payment

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

5
Exemption5
Section 153A4

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR/S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)Section 40

TDS. However, since the assessee is a co- operative bank, therefore, this exemption is not applicable to it. He further stated that from 1.6.2015, this anomaly has been removed and it is clearly provided that the cooperative banks are not eligible for this exemption. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee bank has not deducted tax at source on the payment

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/CTK/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR/S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)Section 40

TDS. However, since the assessee is a co- operative bank, therefore, this exemption is not applicable to it. He further stated that from 1.6.2015, this anomaly has been removed and it is clearly provided that the cooperative banks are not eligible for this exemption. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee bank has not deducted tax at source on the payment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 89/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR/S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)Section 40

TDS. However, since the assessee is a co- operative bank, therefore, this exemption is not applicable to it. He further stated that from 1.6.2015, this anomaly has been removed and it is clearly provided that the cooperative banks are not eligible for this exemption. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee bank has not deducted tax at source on the payment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 62/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR/S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)Section 40

TDS. However, since the assessee is a co- operative bank, therefore, this exemption is not applicable to it. He further stated that from 1.6.2015, this anomaly has been removed and it is clearly provided that the cooperative banks are not eligible for this exemption. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee bank has not deducted tax at source on the payment

CHANDI FILLING STATION,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 10/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Chandi Chandi Filling Filling Station, Station, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Manguli, Cuttack Manguli, Cuttack Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aacfc 8350 K (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 263Section 40

section 69A of the Act. This, admittedly is an error in the assessment order and tax slab rate of 30% as against 60% P a g e 10 | 13 Assessment year: 2017-18 caused prejudice to the interest of the revenue and on this issue, we are of the view that the order of the Pr. CIT is liable

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. G.V.V.CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

Appeal of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 297/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.297/Ctk/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S G.V.V. Constructions Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.358, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 3649 Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.36/Ctk/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S G.V.V.Constructions Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.358, Bhubaneswar Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 3649 Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Citdr धनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal & The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar In I.T.Appeal No.0593/2013-14, Dated 9-3-2015, Passed U/S.271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When The Matter Was Called For Hearing. Hence, We Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & The Submissions Of Ld. Dr. 3. We Take Up The Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.297/Ctk/2015, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 69A

TDS on expenses and violated the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act of Rs.8,06,948/- and third addition being the assessee has claimed donation of Rs.20,44,632/- in the profit and loss account and since there is no evidence submitted in support of claim, further the AO found that the assessee has recurring deposits with

M/S. BAJRANGBALI STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,ROURKLA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 109/CTK/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.31 To 33/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 To 2018-2019) M/S Bee Pee Rollers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3593 P & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.34 To 39/Ctk/2022 & आयकर अऩीऱ/Ita No.109/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2017 To 2020-2021) M/S Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Ltd., Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3594 L & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.40 To 44/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2018-2019) M/S Bajrangbali Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aaccb 6678 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Shri B.K. Tibrewal, Ca & Ms. Nisha Rachh, Ca Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate with Shri
Section 133ASection 153ASection 292CSection 69Section 69C

69A were made without providing statements and materials, on basis of which such additions were made, to assessee, matter should be remitted back without quashing said order. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Vetrivel Minerals vs. ACIT (129 taxmann.com 126) held where assessment orders passed in case of assessee under section 153A were passed in gross

PRAFULLA KUMAR ROUTRAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 175/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 54Section 69A

Section 69A as made by the learned Assessing Officer is not correct on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 4. For that disallowance of cost of acquisition of the property at Rs. 1,57,53,865/-and claim of deduction of Rs.82,46,135/- u/s.54 totalling to Rs.2,40,00,000/-and addition of the same

JYOTI IMPRINTS,CUTTACK vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

ITA 505/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.505/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष"

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

Section 69A of the Act cannot be invoked. Looking to these facts, the addition of Rs.5 lakhs made u/s.69A of the Act is hereby deleted. 7. The next ground of appeal is in relation to the addition of Rs.46,960/- made by the AO by applying 8% profit rate on the receipts of Rs.5,86,999/- being the difference between

KALPANA MISHRA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 491/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.491/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Kalpana Mishra, Vs Ito Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar Plot No.B-87/A, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Alfpm 2864 E (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062168195(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao Even Though The Learned Ao Has Exceeded His Jurisdiction In A Limited Scrutiny Case Selected Under Cass Only To Examine Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed Or Not & Added A Sum Of Rs.44,00,000.00 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Obtaining Prior Administrative Approval Of The Concerned Pr. Cit/Cit As Prescribed In Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/Ita.Ii, Dated 28- 11-2018 & Instruction No.5/2016 [F.No.225/269/2015-

Section 68

section 142(1) of the Act in 'limited scrutiny cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case has been picked up for scrutiny. Further, the scope of enquiry shall be restricted to the 'limited scrutiny' issues. c. These cases shall be completed expeditiously in a limited number of hearings. 3.1.24. Sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph

SHIV KUMAR PODDAR,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-2, BALASORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S Saini

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 34Section 40Section 41Section 44A

section 41 of the Act. So, the CTO has yet to assessee the sales turn-over of the appellant and hence, can not be treated as accepted by the Sales Tax Authorities. (ii) As per provision u/s 44AA (2)(i) of the Act, she is required to maintain; such books of accounts and other documents as may enable

SWARNA DAS,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 24/CTK/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.S Saini

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 34Section 40Section 41Section 44A

section 41 of the Act. So, the CTO has yet to assessee the sales turn-over of the appellant and hence, can not be treated as accepted by the Sales Tax Authorities. (ii) As per provision u/s 44AA (2)(i) of the Act, she is required to maintain; such books of accounts and other documents as may enable