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.

38 results for “TDS”+ Section 26clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,577Mumbai2,529Bangalore1,449Chennai936Kolkata602Pune478Hyderabad405Cochin364Ahmedabad354Jaipur254Indore235Raipur217Chandigarh208Karnataka186Surat120Nagpur90Lucknow82Rajkot82Visakhapatnam78Cuttack62Amritsar42Guwahati38Ranchi38Dehradun33Agra24Allahabad21Panaji20Jodhpur18Telangana18Patna17SC14Jabalpur14Kerala11Varanasi9Calcutta4Uttarakhand3Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 10(26)35Addition to Income35Section 153C29Section 25026Section 143(3)18Disallowance16TDS15Section 26314Depreciation14Section 147

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

Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That it is furthermore pertinent to state, that the Assessing Officer, without considering the relevant exemption provision and without applying reasonable and fair application of mind. In this regard, the Assessing officer had absolutely and completely erred at the time of passing the Impugned Assessment Order dated 28.03.2022, as such

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. ACHULA DARNEICHONG SAILO, SHILLONG

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

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

11
Section 3611
Section 44A10
ITA 119/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without verification. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC Delhi is erroneous as he had not taken into consideration (hat the accounts of the assessee were not audited u/s 44AB of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The appellant craves the leave to amend or alter any ground

TRIDENT INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), GUWAHATI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 10(26)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 250Section 40Section 69C

TDS I.T.A. No. 254/GTY/2024 Trident Infraprojects Private Limited under Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, which exempts income

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

26) as TDS is deducted by a deductor who is not from the areas or state mentioned in section 10(26

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

26) as TDS is deducted by a deductor who is not from the areas or state mentioned in section 10(26

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

26) of the Income Tax Act, despite the facts and circumstances of the case warranting such benefits. (iv) The Assessing Officer failed to accept the income tax return filed on September 4, 2021, in response to the notice issued under Section 148. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has not filed return of income

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)

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

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)

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

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)

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

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)

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. BIRI KAKUM, ESS SECTOR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 170/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: The Ld. Ao. The Ld. Ao Was Not Satisfied With The Response Given By The Assessee & Made The Impugned Addition With The Following Finding:

Section 10(26)Section 145(3)Section 250

TDS provisions does not ipso facto become unverifiable if supported by books of accounts and confirmations. In view of the above discussion, Ground No. 4 is allowed. 9. Ground Nos. 5 and 6 are against in restricting the exemption u/s 10(26) from I.T.A. No. 170/GTY/2025 Biri Kakum Rs.8.65,22,919/- to Rs.5,09,65,106/- by the AO. Section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. THE MEGHALAYA COOPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED, SHILLONG

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross

ITA 50/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 36Section 40

section 251 I.T.A. No.: 50/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Meghalaya Cooperative Apex Bank Limited. of the Act with effect from 01.06.2001. Further, the evidence for claiming exemption u/s 10(26) of the Act was not produced before the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings nor even before the Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings. The finding

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

Section 10(26) of the Act. Thus, notwithstanding that there is no legal requirement for ensuring furnishing of ITR by the person from whom TDS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 2/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 10(26) of the Act and thus, in the absence of any tax liability of such Tribal People, it would be a fruitless exercise to first deduct TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 39/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 10(26) of the Act and thus, in the absence of any tax liability of such Tribal People, it would be a fruitless exercise to first deduct TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 37/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 10(26) of the Act and thus, in the absence of any tax liability of such Tribal People, it would be a fruitless exercise to first deduct TDS

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 43/GTY/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 10(26) of the Act and thus, in the absence of any tax liability of such Tribal People, it would be a fruitless exercise to first deduct TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 38/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 10(26) of the Act and thus, in the absence of any tax liability of such Tribal People, it would be a fruitless exercise to first deduct TDS

SHRI SANJIBUR RAHMAN,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AGARTALA

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

ITA 249/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati30 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 44AD applicable on some contractor is not to be applied on every time on every type of business. Therefore, we direct the ld. Assessing Officer to take an estimated income at 4% and credit of income disclosed by the assessee is to be given of Rs.6,03,762/-. In other words, at 4%, the total addition will be Rs.12

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 40/GTY/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati03 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153C

26. The next item of evidence referred by the ld. Assessing Officer is that statement of one Shri Sanjay Kumar Drolia, S/o. Shyam Sunder Drolia, who was a Director of M/s. Silverpoint Infratech Limited, was recorded on 25.06.2014 and in his statement, he submitted that this company provides bogus contract bills to many companies on commission basis. In sub- paragraph