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.

7 results for “TDS”+ Section 271(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi991Mumbai912Bangalore315Chennai212Ahmedabad128Kolkata113Karnataka110Raipur98Hyderabad96Jaipur95Pune53Chandigarh34Indore33Nagpur31Rajkot27Visakhapatnam20Lucknow20Surat13Amritsar12Guwahati7Jabalpur7Patna6Jodhpur5Dehradun5Telangana5Varanasi4SC4Allahabad3Panaji3Cuttack3Agra2Cochin2Ranchi1Kerala1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 271C20Section 27120Section 201(1)10TDS7Addition to Income7Section 2506Deduction6Penalty5Section 1472Section 143(3)

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 102/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271C

1. “The order passed by Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC under section 250 of the I. T. Act 1961 is bad in law and in facts and liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred on facts and in law in conforming levy of penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- under section 271(c

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

2
ITA 100/JAB/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271C

1. “The order passed by Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC under section 250 of the I. T. Act 1961 is bad in law and in facts and liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred on facts and in law in conforming levy of penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- under section 271(c

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 101/JAB/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271C

1. “The order passed by Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC under section 250 of the I. T. Act 1961 is bad in law and in facts and liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred on facts and in law in conforming levy of penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- under section 271(c

MANESSH SHARMA ,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 103/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271C

1. “The order passed by Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC under section 250 of the I. T. Act 1961 is bad in law and in facts and liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred on facts and in law in conforming levy of penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- under section 271(c

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 99/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271C

1. “The order passed by Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC under section 250 of the I. T. Act 1961 is bad in law and in facts and liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred on facts and in law in conforming levy of penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- under section 271(c

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-CHHINDWARA, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI SHEVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 91/JAB/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

TDS. (i.e. difference in gross receipt as per books of accounts and gross receipts worked out on the basis of imaginary entries of TCS/TDS in form 26AS.) 6. Considering the fact that all the cash deposits in the joint saving no.31108019668 of Smt. Sonam Shivendra Parihar (wife) and the assessee, are fully explained and the cash deposited by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. SHRI INDRABHAN SINGH RATHORE, NARSINGHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 234/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur08 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri. Aok Bhura, DRFor Respondent: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 271(1)(c). 4 Sh. Indrabhan Singh Rathor through Sh. Lal Saheb Rathore (L/H) 3. The assessee went before the learned CIT(A) and submitted, that the addition of Rs.2,25,00,519/- represented the amount of secured loan and not unsecured loan. It was submitted that all the secured loan creditors had been listed in Schedule