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.

6 results for “TDS”+ Section 269Tclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi41Mumbai22Bangalore11Amritsar6Indore6Jaipur6Lucknow5Ahmedabad4Hyderabad4Pune3Jodhpur1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 271D10Section 1327Section 143(3)5Penalty5Section 253(5)4Section 269S4Addition to Income4Limitation/Time-bar3Section 1472Section 148

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 188/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

Section 132Section 254(2)Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)(c)

269T of the Act. A further notice was sent on 25th September, 2012, seeking the Assessee's reply, which ultimately was submitted on 10th October, 2012. Page 18 of 33 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 4. In the reply itself, the Assessee contended that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation under Section

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

2
Section 148(2)2
Search & Seizure2
ITA 212/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

TDS. Regarding PF, he submitted that the PF was not applicable to all employees which is also a fact and therefore the assessee deducted PF only in those cases where there was a legal requirement under PF rules. Regarding AO’s adverse observations on vouchers of salary, Ld. AR carried us to a few vouchers scanned by AO in assessment

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS & TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LTD., MHOW

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

ITA 20/IND/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 271D

269T i.e. where the loan is repaid. But, however, in the present case the allegation of department is that the assessee has given loan to AIDPL. Hence, neither section 271D nor section 271E is applicable qua the assessee. 11. Based on above pleading made by assessee, the Ld. Addl. CIT sought a factual-report from Ld. AO on the nature

M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOO HIGHWAY LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

ITA 283/IND/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 271D

269T i.e. where the loan is repaid. But, however, in the present case the allegation of department is that the assessee has given loan to AIDPL. Hence, neither section 271D nor section 271E is applicable qua the assessee. 11. Based on above pleading made by assessee, the Ld. Addl. CIT sought a factual-report from Ld. AO on the nature

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 189/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 269SSection 271D

269T of the Act. A further notice was sent on 25th September, 2012, seeking the Assessee's reply, which ultimately was submitted on 10th October, 2012. 4. In the reply itself, the Assessee contended that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, which reads as under: "275. Bar of limitation for imposing

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 190/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 269SSection 271D

269T of the Act. A further notice was sent on 25th September, 2012, seeking the Assessee's reply, which ultimately was submitted on 10th October, 2012. 4. In the reply itself, the Assessee contended that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, which reads as under: "275. Bar of limitation for imposing