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.

30 results for “TDS”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai664Delhi472Chennai243Hyderabad178Kolkata159Bangalore147Jaipur135Ahmedabad134Indore66Cochin66Chandigarh64Surat61Pune43Nagpur33Raipur30Cuttack30Rajkot28Guwahati26Lucknow23Agra17Visakhapatnam16Amritsar14Jodhpur12Patna7Varanasi7Allahabad6Dehradun5Ranchi2Telangana2Jabalpur2Calcutta1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income22Section 4021Disallowance16Section 194A15Section 6814Unexplained Cash Credit12TDS12Section 143(3)11Section 194A(3)10Deduction

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

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 142(1)7
Section 133(6)7

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 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, 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

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 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

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

unexplained money. In respect of interest paid to Bajaj Finance Ltd., it was the submission that the amount had been paid in lumpsum and it included principal and interest and Bajaj Finance Ltd was not cooperating in providing Form 10 BA to show that the amount has been disclosed by them in their return. In respect of other issues

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

unexplained money of the assessee. 6 Admittedly, in this case the proceedings u/s.148 of the Act were initiated on the basis of bank account of the buyer M/s Shree Shyam Trading Co. available with the department from where the RTGS was received by the assessee. Merely because the assessee has not provided the details of the buyer of the machine

SMT. PRAGYAN MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 446/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 145

unexplained money ignoring the accounting system consistently followed by the assessee. 10. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer observing that the discrepancies noticed by the Assessing Officer have not been explained separately by the assessee by bringing any materials and, therefore, the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted. 11. Before me, ld Authorised Representative

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLER-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S.LAND & WATER PROJECTS PVT. LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 424/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am (Through : Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.424/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S Land & Water Projects Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.14(W), Ashok Nagar Bhubaneswar-751002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Panno. : Aabcl 6312 N (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 40Section 68

unexplained share application money' when the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of Shri Srinibas Sahoo, Director of the company. 3. The appellant craves to alter, amend or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in course of the appeal proceedings. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the civil

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

unexplained money under 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

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

TDS Certificates, found the gross receipt of commission from Bajaj Allianz is Rs.8,65,190/- as against Rs.7,25,757/- disclosed by the appellant in her return and added Rs. 1,39,433/- to the returned income. In view of the enhanced gross commission received from Bajaj Allianz, the A.O. is not justified in further disallowing 10% of the expenditures

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

TDS Certificates, found the gross receipt of commission from Bajaj Allianz is Rs.8,65,190/- as against Rs.7,25,757/- disclosed by the appellant in her return and added Rs. 1,39,433/- to the returned income. In view of the enhanced gross commission received from Bajaj Allianz, the A.O. is not justified in further disallowing 10% of the expenditures

NISHA DATA COM LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, both the appeals filed for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-

ITA 174/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133BSection 144Section 250Section 40

money is illegal and violative of principle of natural justice and is liable to be annulled. 3. For that the addition of Rs. 1,01,95,050.00 under the head unexplained cash credit is illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and is liable to be annulled. 4. For that the CIT(A) without affording adequate opportunity of hearing dismissed the appeal and confirmed

NISHA DATA COM LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, both the appeals filed for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-

ITA 173/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133BSection 144Section 250Section 40

money is illegal and violative of principle of natural justice and is liable to be annulled. 3. For that the addition of Rs. 1,01,95,050.00 under the head unexplained cash credit is illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and is liable to be annulled. 4. For that the CIT(A) without affording adequate opportunity of hearing dismissed the appeal and confirmed

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. DIVAKAR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 507/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194Section 194C

money of Rs.72,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. 6. Similarly, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had transaction with party M/s. Vaishnavi Road Carrier. The assessee had shown sundry creditor balance against this party at Rs.1,50,000/-. In reply to notice u/s.133(6), M/s. Vashnavi Road Carrier confirmed that the outstanding balance against

HADIBANDHU PRADHAN,ANGUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL, ANGUL

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 42/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack02 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2017-18 Hadibandhu Pradhan Hadibandhu Pradhan, S/O- Vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Officer, Udayanath Pradhan, At/Po: Udayanath Pradhan, At/Po: Angul Ward, Angul Angul Ward, Angul Dera, Talcher, Dist: Angul Dera, Talcher, Dist: Angul- 759103 Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Adwpp 5210 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/0 /04/2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Aga This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.9.2023 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.Cit(A),Bhubaneswar- 2/10141/2019 2/10141/2019-19 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 .

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR

unexplained income of the assessee. 7. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that admittedly Rs.10 lakhs have been withdrawn in the form of cash and Rs.5 lakhs was transferred to Shri Ajit Kumar Sahoo. It was the submission that Shri Ajit Kumar Sahoo is not the P a g e 3 | 6 Assessment Year : 2017-18 son of the assessee

OMM SHREE REALCON PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

TDS. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Walchand & Co. vs. CIT (100 ITR 598) held as under " By its objects clause the trust company was, inter alia, authorised to advance or loan moneys on security of shares, stocks, etc., and also to receive moneys on deposit, interest or otherwise and to lend moneys to other persons

GUDLA BHASKAR RAO,KORAPUT vs. ACIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR, BERHAMPUR

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

ITA 272/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)

TDS was deducted on the interest as per section u/s.194A of the Act and hence made addition of Rs.4,60,000/. 4.6. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) on 31.12.2010 determining the total income at Rs.13,71,30,890/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal with the CIT(A). Before

YAZDANI INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 17/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)

TDS was deducted on the interest as per section u/s.194A of the Act and hence made addition of Rs.4,60,000/. 4.6. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) on 31.12.2010 determining the total income at Rs.13,71,30,890/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal with the CIT(A). Before

M/S. MAA TARANI LOGISTICS LTD,JODA vs. ACIT CIR.-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 140/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Maa Tarani Logistics M/S Maa Tarani Logistics Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., Ltd., Unchabali, Unchabali, Po: Po: Cuttack Bamabri, Bamabri, Via Via- Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecm 7549 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023 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), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Dated 27.3.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051397448(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. S/Shri Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Reve Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & JaydeepFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 1aSection 234Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act and added the same. It was the submission that on appeal, the ld CIT(A) after considering the evidences and details filed held that the addition of Rs.4,00,00,000/- representing the share application money received from M/s. Triveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd., was substantiated and explained and deleted the addition. However