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 44Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai49Delhi28Chennai13Hyderabad3Jodhpur2

Key Topics

Section 271B15Section 44A6Section 2503Section 1473Section 44B3Section 1483Penalty3TDS3

AR ASSOCIATES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 818/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No 817 To 819/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18) Ar Associates Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Circle 6 (1) Pan:Aavfa2434K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Hari Agarwal, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Hari Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gudimella V P Pavan
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 44B

section 44AB of the I.T. Act, 1961. Hence, the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT (A) is liable to be quashed. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No.2 and 3 above, the appellant submits the following ground: The Hon'ble CIT (A) is unjustified in dismissing the appeal filed u/s 271B without considering the fact that the quantum appeal

AR ASSOCIATES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 819/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No 817 To 819/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18) Ar Associates Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Circle 6 (1) Pan:Aavfa2434K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Hari Agarwal, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Hari Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gudimella V P Pavan
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 44B

section 44AB of the I.T. Act, 1961. Hence, the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT (A) is liable to be quashed. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No.2 and 3 above, the appellant submits the following ground: The Hon'ble CIT (A) is unjustified in dismissing the appeal filed u/s 271B without considering the fact that the quantum appeal

AR ASSOCIATES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 817/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. & आ.अपी.सं /Ita No 817 To 819/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18) Ar Associates Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Circle 6 (1) Pan:Aavfa2434K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Hari Agarwal, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Hari Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gudimella V P Pavan
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 44B

section 44AB of the I.T. Act, 1961. Hence, the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT (A) is liable to be quashed. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No.2 and 3 above, the appellant submits the following ground: The Hon'ble CIT (A) is unjustified in dismissing the appeal filed u/s 271B without considering the fact that the quantum appeal