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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Section 204clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai297Delhi251Bangalore166Karnataka86Pune77Kolkata63Chandigarh61Chennai47Jaipur34Ranchi31Ahmedabad28Hyderabad21Indore17Visakhapatnam17Raipur16Lucknow11Panaji10Nagpur10Rajkot8Jabalpur6Patna6Cochin6Guwahati5Agra3SC2Surat2J&K2Kerala1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)8Section 2018Section 10(26)5Addition to Income5Section 4(1)4Section 2044Section 44Section 133A4Section 1944TDS

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 14/GTY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 204Section 4Section 4(1)

TDS-1, Guwahati [AO] was not justified in treating the appellant as assessee in default in respect of Rs. 3,82,104/- without bringing on record any material to show that any part of the related amount of Rs. 38,21,040/- paid by the appellant as Rent was 'income' chargeable to tax under section

4
Survey u/s 133A4
Natural Justice4

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 15/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 204Section 4Section 4(1)

TDS-1, Guwahati [AO] was not justified in treating the appellant as assessee in default in respect of Rs. 3,82,104/- without bringing on record any material to show that any part of the related amount of Rs. 38,21,040/- paid by the appellant as Rent was 'income' chargeable to tax under section

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 16/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 204Section 4Section 4(1)

TDS-1, Guwahati [AO] was not justified in treating the appellant as assessee in default in respect of Rs. 3,82,104/- without bringing on record any material to show that any part of the related amount of Rs. 38,21,040/- paid by the appellant as Rent was 'income' chargeable to tax under section

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 17/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 204Section 4Section 4(1)

TDS-1, Guwahati [AO] was not justified in treating the appellant as assessee in default in respect of Rs. 3,82,104/- without bringing on record any material to show that any part of the related amount of Rs. 38,21,040/- paid by the appellant as Rent was 'income' chargeable to tax under section

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