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.

2 results for “TDS”+ Section 182clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi342Mumbai277Bangalore116Chennai112Karnataka94Chandigarh76Kolkata64Ahmedabad43Hyderabad37Raipur34Jaipur28Indore20Visakhapatnam17Surat15Rajkot14Pune10Jodhpur9Cochin7Kerala5Nagpur5Cuttack4Lucknow4Agra3Telangana2SC2Guwahati2Amritsar1Varanasi1Dehradun1Rajasthan1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 10(26)5Section 69C4Section 2502Addition to Income2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. SHRI PARAN JYOTI SAIKIA, GUWAHATI

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

ITA 125/GTY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 69C

182/- 12 Mostufa Uddin AETPU6188C 2,22,223/- 13 Tazul Hussain ADCPH7747N 5,30,303/- Page 4 of 10 I.T.A. No.: 125/GTY/2020 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Paran Jyoti Saikia. 14 Abdul Baten BFEPB0688F 2,29,848/- 15 Shyam Kumar Yadav ADSPY3470H 4,04,040/- 16 Juber Ahmed BJKPA2475F 75,758/- 17 Abdul Bashit COZPB6667R 60,606/- 18 NikhKamin AKEPK9764D

JOSEPH SYNGKLI,NONGPOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 157/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 250Section 251

TDS has been claimed, their corresponding receipts are not offered in the ITR of the assessee and were not appearing in 26AS.” I.T.A. No.: 157/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Joseph Syngkli. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that required submission was made before the Ld. CIT(A) but he did not examine the explanation. Our attention was drawn to page