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.

11 results for “TDS”+ Section 144Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai199Delhi113Pune89Hyderabad63Bangalore61Chennai60Ahmedabad53Chandigarh46Jaipur33Visakhapatnam31Rajkot25Kolkata23Patna14Raipur12Indore11Lucknow11Agra9Surat8Amritsar7Cuttack7Cochin7Nagpur5Ranchi3Guwahati2Jodhpur1Panaji1Calcutta1Dehradun1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 26323Section 14811Section 14710Section 143(3)10Section 2(14)(iii)8Section 688Addition to Income7Deduction6Section 575Section 143(2)

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

144B, and unless the prejudice to the interests of the revenue is shown, the jurisdiction under section 263(1) cannot be exercised by the Commissioner, even though the order is erroneous. The argument that such an order may possibly be challenged in appeal by the assessee, and for this reason it is prejudicial to the interests of the HarleenKaur Bhatia

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

4
Reassessment4
Reopening of Assessment3
Section 263

144B, and unless the prejudice to the interests of the revenue is shown, the jurisdiction under section 263(1) cannot be exercised by the Commissioner, even though the order is erroneous. The argument that such an order may possibly be challenged in appeal by the assessee, and for this reason it is prejudicial to the interests of the HarleenKaur Bhatia

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

144B, and unless the prejudice to the interests of the revenue ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari is shown, the jurisdiction under section 263(1) cannot be exercised by the Commissioner, even though the order is erroneous. The argument that such an order may possibly be challenged in appeal by the assessee, and for this reason it is prejudicial

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

144B, and unless the prejudice to the interests of the revenue ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari is shown, the jurisdiction under section 263(1) cannot be exercised by the Commissioner, even though the order is erroneous. The argument that such an order may possibly be challenged in appeal by the assessee, and for this reason it is prejudicial

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

144B, and unless the prejudice to the interests of the revenue ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari is shown, the jurisdiction under section 263(1) cannot be exercised by the Commissioner, even though the order is erroneous. The argument that such an order may possibly be challenged in appeal by the assessee, and for this reason it is prejudicial

SHRI PREMNARAYAN,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

ITA 262/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 54B

144B on 22.03.2022 by accepting the return income. Thereafter the Pr. CIT has invoked the provisions of section 263 by show cause notice u/s 263 dated 22.01.2024 as under: “M/s/Mr/Ms Subject: Noice for Hearing in respect of Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961-Assessment Year 2014-15, In this regard, a hearing in the matter

SMT. SHARDA,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

ITA 263/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 54B

144B on 22.03.2022 by accepting the return income. Thereafter the Pr. CIT has invoked the provisions of section 263 by show cause notice u/s 263 dated 22.01.2024 as under: “M/s/Mr/Ms Subject: Noice for Hearing in respect of Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961-Assessment Year 2014-15, In this regard, a hearing in the matter

PRAVEEN AGRAWAL ,INDORE vs. DCIT 4(1) INDORE, INDORE

ITA 651/IND/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Paresh M Joshi & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 57Section 68

TDS & Disallowance for such default (iii) Unsecured Loans 2.2 That as and by way of an assessment order bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1035802484(1) dated 22.09. 2021 the total income of the assessee was computed at Rs.2,20,33,310/- u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved

JAYA GARG,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

Appeal is allowed

ITA 74/IND/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Ms.Jaya Garg, Income-Tax Officer, C-4-C-5, Shvkripa Colony, Nfac, बनाम/ Indore New Delhi Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agtpg4247L Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Shri Soumya Bumb, Ars Revenue By Shri K. Bala Murali Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and applicable law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming that LAO has not applied mind and initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. The notice

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

ITA 872/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

144B of the Act the total income of the assessee was computed at Rs.1,83,77,290/-. The assessee’s Return of Income as per ITR filed u/s 148 was Rs.93,04,130/-. An Addition of Rs.87,20,000/- was made on account of (1) unexplained money u/s 68 of the Act (2) on account of undisclosed income of Rs.3

SHIVKRIPA DEVCONS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OR OTHER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

ITA 594/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Indore16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1067032535(1) dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the Page 1 of 11 Shivkripa Devcons Private