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.

8 results for “TDS”+ Section 144clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai685Delhi549Bangalore300Kolkata207Chennai179Hyderabad169Ahmedabad157Pune144Jaipur121Cochin119Karnataka114Raipur110Chandigarh70Indore60Surat56Visakhapatnam42Lucknow38Rajkot30Amritsar26Patna25Agra18Cuttack16Nagpur16Jodhpur15Jabalpur14Allahabad9Guwahati8Panaji7SC5Telangana5Varanasi5Calcutta3Dehradun3Ranchi2Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 44A13Section 10(26)13Section 69A8Section 1447Addition to Income7TDS6Section 404Section 194J4Section 2504Section 147

TRENISTONE D SANGMA,AMPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - GOALPARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 285/GTY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ashok Sharma, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha, JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

144 is legally unsound, given the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the relevant points of law. (ii) The Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,08,64,155 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also erred in upholding this addition. (iii) Both

4
Unexplained Money3
Business Income2

MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 224/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Roy, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 253(5)

144(3) dated 30.12.2019. 05. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A), after discussing the assessment order, came to the conclusion that the addition was rightly made u/s 68 of the Act in respect of unexplained share capital/ share premium when assessee or authorized representative failed to attend the appellate proceedings on behalf of the assessee

SAUQUL ISLAM,NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR

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

ITA 235/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.235/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri T. Hunar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 44A

TDS provisions, details of payments of tax, cess, duty, fees, compliance with provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, maintenance of inventory records etc. The appellant would accordingly get a relief of 3% of the net profit rate. Thus, out of the total addition of Rs.15,67,258/-, an addition of Rs.896459/- (i.e. 5% of Rs.2

FRIDAY HINGE,MEGHALAYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 264/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati04 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

TDS is deducted by a deductor who is not from the areas or state mentioned in section 10(26). 3. Claim for large exempt Income (Business ITR). Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 29.06.2021 and notices u/s 142(1) were issued to the assessee from time to time asking to submit details as mentioned therein. The assessee

FRIDAY HINGE,MEGHALAYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 263/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati04 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

TDS is deducted by a deductor who is not from the areas or state mentioned in section 10(26). 3. Claim for large exempt Income (Business ITR). Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 29.06.2021 and notices u/s 142(1) were issued to the assessee from time to time asking to submit details as mentioned therein. The assessee

M/S. K. B. ASSOCIATES,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

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

ITA 472/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.472/Gty/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S K. B. Associates.....…………………………....................……….……Appellant Nilomani Phukan Path, Christian Basti, Guwahati-781005. [Pan: Aajfk6526E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Guwahati……..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. I. Gyaneshori Devi, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 19, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 29, 2022 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 30.09.2019 Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 08.12.2018. 2. When The Case Was Called, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. A Perusal Of The Appeal File Shows That Even After Providing Opportunity, The Assessee Failed To Appear. It Seems That Assessee Is Not Interested To Pursue The Appeal. We, Therefore, Decide To Hear This Appeal With The Assistance Of The Ld. Departmental Representative & Adjudicate The Same On Merits.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234A

144 of the Act rejecting the assessee’s books of account 145(3) of the Act and based on the TDS details available on Form 26AS showing the receipts at Rs. 2,60,71,952/-, ld. A.O estimated the net profit @50% of the total turnover and calculated the estimated net profit at Rs.1,30,35,976/-. Since the assessee

GOLDEN ARROW TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG

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

ITA 233/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 194JSection 40

section 194J/194C of the Act. Since the assessee could not explain before him the expenditure incurred of Rs.48,000/- he resorted to disallowance, which action has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Before us, it was 3 Golden Arrow Travels P.Ltd demonstrated with the help of paper book pages 2 & 3 that assessee had two offices functioning at Shillong

MRINAL DAS,BAKSA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

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

ITA 255/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 40A(3)Section 44ASection 69A

TDS u/s 194A of the Act of Rs. 345/- was also deposited. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. The Ld. AO issued statutory notices to the assessee but no response was received nor any return was filed within 30 days of the service of the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee however, filed