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.

142 results for “TDS”+ Section 10(108)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi431Mumbai385Bangalore179Indore142Karnataka112Chennai106Hyderabad102Kolkata94Ahmedabad78Cochin76Chandigarh75Jaipur47Pune37Cuttack35Raipur33Agra23Visakhapatnam17Nagpur16Lucknow15Surat14Rajkot12Patna10Telangana9Amritsar7Guwahati5Jodhpur4Allahabad2SC2Dehradun1Calcutta1Jabalpur1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 15477TDS75Section 234E69Section 143(3)52Section 26339Addition to Income21Section 40A(3)17Section 153A13Section 143(2)12Section 142(1)

GURVINDER KAUR BHATIA ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 151/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 263

108(Bom) 6.CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Gujarat) 7. CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502(Gujarat) 8.CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (20100 189 Taxman 436 (Del) 8. With regard to the contention that the amendment brought in Finance Act 2013 in Explanation (1) to section 10(10D) is prospective in nature, assessee relied following judgments

HARLEEN KAUR BHATIA,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 150/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Showing 1–20 of 142 · Page 1 of 8

...
11
Disallowance11
Deduction11
Section 263

108(Bom) 6.CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Gujarat) 7. CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502(Gujarat) 8.CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (20100 189 Taxman 436 (Del) 8. With regard to the contention that the amendment brought in Finance Act 2013 in Explanation (1) to section 10(10D) is prospective in nature, assessee relied following judgments

PERMALI WALLACE PVT. LTD,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

ITA 551/IND/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 195Section 195rSection 201(1)Section 271CSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

10,47,750/-. Thus, the payee has incurred loss on installation activity. To establish the factum of loss, the Page 16 of 29 Permali Wallace P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO, Bhopal, ITA Nos.550 to 552/Ind/2018 - A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 assessee filed documentary evidences in the form of (i) a Letter dated 25.05.2016 of payee confirming that they have

PERMALI WALLACE PVT. LTD,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

ITA 552/IND/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 195Section 195rSection 201(1)Section 271CSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

10,47,750/-. Thus, the payee has incurred loss on installation activity. To establish the factum of loss, the Page 16 of 29 Permali Wallace P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO, Bhopal, ITA Nos.550 to 552/Ind/2018 - A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 assessee filed documentary evidences in the form of (i) a Letter dated 25.05.2016 of payee confirming that they have

PERMALI WALLACE PVT. LTD,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

ITA 550/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 195Section 195rSection 201(1)Section 271CSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

10,47,750/-. Thus, the payee has incurred loss on installation activity. To establish the factum of loss, the Page 16 of 29 Permali Wallace P. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO, Bhopal, ITA Nos.550 to 552/Ind/2018 - A.Ys.2014-15 to 2016-17 assessee filed documentary evidences in the form of (i) a Letter dated 25.05.2016 of payee confirming that they have

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 441/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

10 Kgs. to 30 Kgs. The conversion of Kgs into Bars would come to approx. 132 bars and the profit would come @ Rs.800/- per Bar to approx. Rs.1,05,600/-. The assessee has shown the gross profit ofRs.11,50,370/-. Thus, the assessee has shown more profit than estimated by the learned Assessing Officer. Complete details of purchases and sales

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 244/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

10 Kgs. to 30 Kgs. The conversion of Kgs into Bars would come to approx. 132 bars and the profit would come @ Rs.800/- per Bar to approx. Rs.1,05,600/-. The assessee has shown the gross profit ofRs.11,50,370/-. Thus, the assessee has shown more profit than estimated by the learned Assessing Officer. Complete details of purchases and sales

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 309/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

10 Kgs. to 30 Kgs. The conversion of Kgs into Bars would come to approx. 132 bars and the profit would come @ Rs.800/- per Bar to approx. Rs.1,05,600/-. The assessee has shown the gross profit ofRs.11,50,370/-. Thus, the assessee has shown more profit than estimated by the learned Assessing Officer. Complete details of purchases and sales

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

108 CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (Bombay H.C.) y. Mukesh Sharma v. CIT 25 ITJ 341 (Indore ITAT) 22. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by Ld. PCIT and further submitted that assessee was required to furnish complete details of the persons named in the hundis so as to prove that

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

108 CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (Bombay H.C.) y. Mukesh Sharma v. CIT 25 ITJ 341 (Indore ITAT) 22. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by Ld. PCIT and further submitted that assessee was required to furnish complete details of the persons named in the hundis so as to prove that

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

108 CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (Bombay H.C.) y. Mukesh Sharma v. CIT 25 ITJ 341 (Indore ITAT) 22. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by Ld. PCIT and further submitted that assessee was required to furnish complete details of the persons named in the hundis so as to prove that

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

ITA 216/IND/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 40a

TDS on several other payments made during the year and consequently, no disallowance was called for under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.1 We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 10.11.2014 approved the net profit rate of 5% in the business carried

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

ITA 232/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 40a

TDS on several other payments made during the year and consequently, no disallowance was called for under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.1 We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 10.11.2014 approved the net profit rate of 5% in the business carried

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

ITA 217/IND/2021[201-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 40a

TDS on several other payments made during the year and consequently, no disallowance was called for under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9.1 We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee itself for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 10.11.2014 approved the net profit rate of 5% in the business carried

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

TDS as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act on the payments as made in the year under consideration. Letter dt 17.08.2016 as issued may please be treated as complied with. Thanking you. Smt. Shweta Agrawal /ITANo.280/Ind/2019 I hereby confirm the content of above letter Yours faithfully, (Shweta Agrawal) (C.A. Satyanarayan Agrawal) Assessee A.R. 13. It is also stated

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,LABRIYA vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 231/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

Section 154Section 234E

section 200A for levy of late-fee thereby rendering the late-fee charged in intimations issued u/s 200A as illegal and such a proposition is upheld by various courts including jurisdictional Bench of ITAT, Indore itself. Ld. AR submitted that the levy of late-fee illegally upon the assessee, is certainly a “mistake apparent on record” and therefore the assessee

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,BHESOLA vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 235/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

Section 154Section 234E

section 200A for levy of late-fee thereby rendering the late-fee charged in intimations issued u/s 200A as illegal and such a proposition is upheld by various courts including jurisdictional Bench of ITAT, Indore itself. Ld. AR submitted that the levy of late-fee illegally upon the assessee, is certainly a “mistake apparent on record” and therefore the assessee

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,PADIYAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 239/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

Section 154Section 234E

section 200A for levy of late-fee thereby rendering the late-fee charged in intimations issued u/s 200A as illegal and such a proposition is upheld by various courts including jurisdictional Bench of ITAT, Indore itself. Ld. AR submitted that the levy of late-fee illegally upon the assessee, is certainly a “mistake apparent on record” and therefore the assessee

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,AJANDA vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 236/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

Section 154Section 234E

section 200A for levy of late-fee thereby rendering the late-fee charged in intimations issued u/s 200A as illegal and such a proposition is upheld by various courts including jurisdictional Bench of ITAT, Indore itself. Ld. AR submitted that the levy of late-fee illegally upon the assessee, is certainly a “mistake apparent on record” and therefore the assessee

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,PIPLIYA vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 240/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

Section 154Section 234E

section 200A for levy of late-fee thereby rendering the late-fee charged in intimations issued u/s 200A as illegal and such a proposition is upheld by various courts including jurisdictional Bench of ITAT, Indore itself. Ld. AR submitted that the levy of late-fee illegally upon the assessee, is certainly a “mistake apparent on record” and therefore the assessee