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 260clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka452Mumbai384Delhi329Bangalore201Kolkata72Chennai64Telangana34Jaipur31Raipur29Ahmedabad29Hyderabad28Pune26Visakhapatnam23Chandigarh16Indore11Rajkot8Dehradun7Lucknow7Cochin6Nagpur4Surat4Rajasthan3SC3Patna2Punjab & Haryana2Guwahati2Agra1Jodhpur1Orissa1Calcutta1Bombay1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)11Section 143(3)10Section 132(4)7Section 271A7Addition to Income7Section 13(1)(c)6TDS5Section 115B4Section 113Section 132

DEEPAK PAREKH,USA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 126/IND/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(1)

section 199 talks of granting credit for tax deducted at source to the other person, who is lawfully taxable in respect of such income, we are satisfied that the matching credit for tax deducted at source must also be allowed to him.\"\n9. Following the same analogy in this case merely because the assessee's wife did not furnish declaration

D.K CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 23/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanid. K Construction Ito 2(3) E 2/21, Pandit Deeendayal Bhopal Complex, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09 .09.2024

3
Disallowance2
Permanent Establishment2
Section 158A(1)Section 256Section 257Section 261Section 801B(10)Section 80I

TDS.” 2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assesse has stated at bar that due to smallness of disallowance the assessee does not press ground no.2 of the grounds of appeal and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. Ld. DR has raised no objection if ground no.2 of the assesse’s appeal is dismissed

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

ITA 33/IND/2020[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)(b)

section 9 is academic, thus making the assessment bad in law B. Since matter was set aside by ITAT for examination of agency PE only whether Ld. Assessing Officer failed to bring anything on record to establish that such a dependent agency PE existed in light of articles 5 & 6 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (in short DTAAs). 3. Brief

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

ITA 34/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)(b)

section 9 is academic, thus making the assessment bad in law B. Since matter was set aside by ITAT for examination of agency PE only whether Ld. Assessing Officer failed to bring anything on record to establish that such a dependent agency PE existed in light of articles 5 & 6 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (in short DTAAs). 3. Brief

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

ITA 232/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115BSection 143(3)

260 ITR 366 (Guj)]. Section 11(4) is merely intended to tax income which is not accounted for in the books: it does not operate to charge a disclosed amount which is admittedly expended, for a purpose either charitable or non- charitable, but is disclos as business expenditure and consequently added back in computing the business income. [CIT v Birla

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

ITA 776/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115BSection 143(3)

260 ITR 366 (Guj)]. Section 11(4) is merely intended to tax income which is not accounted for in the books: it does not operate to charge a disclosed amount which is admittedly expended, for a purpose either charitable or non- charitable, but is disclos as business expenditure and consequently added back in computing the business income. [CIT v Birla

BAL BHAVAN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

ITA 321/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Bal Bhavan School, Dcit (Exemption), 1, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaab3678G Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2024

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

TDS deducted by assessee. (vi) It is submitted that by making a payment of Rs. 14,65,992/- on account of rent, there is a hefty tax burden of more than 30% in the hands of payees whereas the assessee’s income was anyways exempt u/s 11. In such a situation, why would the assessee and the specified persons make

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 252/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate with Shri Gagan TiwariFor Respondent: 28.09.2022
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 271ASection 271DSection 274Section 41(1)

TDS 2,62,79,228 14-09-2007 1,40,00,000 15-12-2007 5,00,00,000 15-12-2007 1,30,00,000 15-03-2008 1,63,00,000 18-09-2008 40,00,000 25-09-2008 17,00,000 .. 1,23,37,620 Total 13,76,16,848 3.02 Your Honour, in the instant

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,INDRA NAGAR vs. DCIT-CPC, CPC-BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed

ITA 162/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit-Cpc बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 68

TDS. The CIT(A) allowed part-relief to assessee. (v) Being unsatisfied with the relief given by CIT(A), the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. The grounds raised by assessee are as under: Original Grounds in Form No. 36: “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order

M/S. ALANKAR JEWELLWER,VIDISHA vs. THE ACIT- II, VIDISHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees in

ITA 838/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2016-17 M/S. Alankar Jewellers Acit-Ii Nikasha Road, Vidisha Bhopal बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D It(Ss)A No.205/Ind/2019 Assessment Year:2016-17 Acit-Ii M/S. Alankar Jewellers Bhopal Nikasha Road, Vidisha बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Respondent By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 44ASection 69B

260/- in AY 2014-15, Rs. 17,20,568/- & Rs. 21,60,500/- in AY 2015-16 an Rs .. 18,84,500/- & Rs. 3,07,500/- in AY 2016-17 are Deleted. Therefore, appeal on these grounds is Allowed. 23. From perusal of the above finding of ld. CIT(A) and the facts placed before

HUSAIN KOHAWALA,KUKSHI DISTT. DHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF APPEAL, NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanihusain Kohawala, Cit (A), Saifiya Marg Bohra Mohalla, Nfac, Near Macchi Darwaza, Delhi Kukshi, Vs. Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bkrpk6392P Assessee By Shri Parag Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 69A

section 143(3) making addition us 69A as unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 7416206 (All Credits including Transfers are considered as cash deposits). The Total addition was made considering two Bank Account i.e. SBI- Alirajpur Branch (Addition of Rs. 6348785) and SBI- Anandganj Mandi Branch (Addition of Rs. 1067421). 2. CIT(A) while making his observation regarding the Grounds