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.

3 results for “TDS”+ Section 271Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai67Chennai43Bangalore36Delhi25Karnataka21Kolkata10Indore9Visakhapatnam6Jaipur6Rajkot6Panaji5Patna3Pune3Hyderabad3Nagpur2Ahmedabad2Cuttack2Jodhpur1Raipur1SC1Surat1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 408Section 201(1)4Section 43B2Section 36(1)(va)2Section 139(1)2Section 115J2Section 143(2)2Double Taxation/DTAA2TDS2Disallowance

NEERUS ENSEMBLES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 163/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.162 & 163/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2017-18) Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccn1554D (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Ltd. (“Assessee”) Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Both Dated 22/12/2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To A.Y.2017-18. Page 1 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40
2
Addition to Income2
Section 43B

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act, that expenditure is allowable if paid before the due date of filing return of income. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not fairly appreciating the legal position considering that the Ld. A.O. ought to have considered the fact that all the payments of PF and ESI fund of employees

NEERUS ENSEMBLES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 162/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.162 & 163/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2017-18) Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccn1554D (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Ltd. (“Assessee”) Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Both Dated 22/12/2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To A.Y.2017-18. Page 1 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act, that expenditure is allowable if paid before the due date of filing return of income. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not fairly appreciating the legal position considering that the Ld. A.O. ought to have considered the fact that all the payments of PF and ESI fund of employees

ADDALA CHANTI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 887/HYD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt Neeju Gupta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 272A(2)(C)Section 272A(2)(c)Section 285

271A(2)(c) after 6 years 7 months and penalty order was passed after 6 years 9 months which is invalid and submitted that the same may be cancelled. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. No.2166/2012 in Bharti Airtel and Another vs. UOI, 76 Taxmann.com 256 (Delhi.) 7. Both the parties