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 43Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai310Delhi292Chennai208Bangalore135Kolkata107Hyderabad46Raipur41Ahmedabad34Visakhapatnam30Jaipur28Pune25Lucknow21Chandigarh11Indore11Cochin10Rajkot9Cuttack7Jabalpur6Karnataka5Nagpur4Surat3Rajasthan3Amritsar2Dehradun2Panaji1Jodhpur1SC1Agra1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)22Disallowance11Section 143(3)10Section 36(1)(va)10Addition to Income9Section 143(1)(a)7Section 406Deduction6Section 143(2)5Section 139(1)

M/S DAULATARAM ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE ADIT/CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 244/IND/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 260ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

43B of the IT Act and therefore be kindly allowed. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred and not justified in disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 51,07,903/- u/s 36(1)(va) and hence be kindly allowed. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances

5
Section 43B4
TDS4

SUCH MEDIA PUBLICATION P LTD ,CIT (A) NFAC DELHI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 66/IND/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 36(1)(va)

TDS of Rs.72,87,370/- was allowed and the refund was determined at Rs.11,61,797/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'). The CIT(A), by order dated 18.12.2023, dismissed the appeal. The assessee thereupon approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated

SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR GULIA,BHOPAL vs. THRE ASSTT.DIRECTORE OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 245/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

TDS of Rs.72,87,370/- was allowed and the refund was determined at Rs.11,61,797/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'). The CIT(A), by order dated 18.12.2023, dismissed the appeal. The assessee thereupon approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated

HONOURABLE PACKAGING P LTD ,DHAR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 348/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Income Tax Return & Can It Be Disallowed In The 143(1).

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

tds (Tax 1422 1422 Double taxation Deducted at source) and tcs (Tax Collected at Source) 3 I.TA No. 348/IND/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Honourable packaging P. Ltd. vs. DCIT Interest on 120 Nil Payment related delay payment of to indirect tax. taxes Delay 892 Nil Normal payment charges Business Expenditures 2.3. The CPC not considered the above facts

M/S RAJENDRA AGRI PRODUCTS P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT (TDS) , BANGALURU

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 121/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirajendra Agri Product P. Dcit Ltd. Cpc Banglore Vs. 302, Royal House,11/13 Usha Ganj Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr 3053 L Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 194CSection 40Section 43B

section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas the assessee has deducted as well as deposited the TDS amounting

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 May 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

TDS was\nNot deductable\n466918841\n6017777180\nOffice rent and utility charges.\n38400000\nProfessional charges.\n5266086\n6064910523\n30% of the expenses of Rs.6064910523\nDisallowable u/s 40(a)(ia)\nNet loss returned\n1819473157\n(4622681240)\nPage 7 of 28\nSaharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited,\nITA No. 425/Ind/2024 - AY 2015-16\n4\nThe learned Assessing Officer has proceeded to tax the disallowances voluntarily

SHRI JANKILAL,UJJAIN vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

ITA 175/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jankilal Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ 12, Chimanganj Mandi Indore Agar Road, Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aczpj 2632 A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 263Section 40Section 80I

TDS has not been made on Security Services payment amounting to Rs. 1,14,433/- made to Sagar Security Services. In submission dated 12th November, 2019, the assessee has stated that as the payee has duly considered this income in return and has paid due taxes thereon, you are not an assessee in default

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

43B on account of non-payment of service tax of Rs. 44,77,216/- and professional tax of Rs. 67,660/- by due date. Also, the AO did not allow full credit of TDS claimed by assessee. Page 2 of 9 RNG Construction Co. ITA No.162/Ind/2024- AY:2018-19 (iv) Against intimation dated 07.12.2019 u/s 143(1), the assessee carried

M/S LIFE CARE INTERNATIONAL,INDORE vs. ACIT-3,(1) , INDORE, INDORE

ITA 336/IND/2018[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

43B(d) of the Act. However, assessee failed to find any favour from the Ld. Assessing Officer. As Ld. Assessing Officer making detailed observation as appearing at 45 to 52 of the assessment order dated 07.03.2014 denied the claim and made the addition of Rs.60,61,225/-. Ld. Assessing Officer also disallowed interest claim of Rs.24,47,865/-, since

M/S LIFE CARE INTERNATIONAL,INDORE vs. JCIT-3, INDORE, INDORE

ITA 335/IND/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

43B(d) of the Act. However, assessee failed to find any favour from the Ld. Assessing Officer. As Ld. Assessing Officer making detailed observation as appearing at 45 to 52 of the assessment order dated 07.03.2014 denied the claim and made the addition of Rs.60,61,225/-. Ld. Assessing Officer also disallowed interest claim of Rs.24,47,865/-, since

M/S LIFE CARE INTERNATIONAL,INDORE vs. ACIT-3,(1) , INDORE, INDORE

ITA 337/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

43B(d) of the Act. However, assessee failed to find any favour from the Ld. Assessing Officer. As Ld. Assessing Officer making detailed observation as appearing at 45 to 52 of the assessment order dated 07.03.2014 denied the claim and made the addition of Rs.60,61,225/-. Ld. Assessing Officer also disallowed interest claim of Rs.24,47,865/-, since