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 32(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,239Delhi2,186Bangalore1,146Chennai761Kolkata471Hyderabad334Ahmedabad286Indore202Chandigarh185Karnataka185Jaipur181Cochin170Raipur159Pune153Surat81Rajkot70Visakhapatnam65Nagpur65Lucknow57Cuttack49Ranchi45Dehradun35Guwahati23Amritsar23Patna20Agra17Allahabad17Telangana16SC12Kerala9Jodhpur9Panaji8Jabalpur6Varanasi6Calcutta4Uttarakhand2Rajasthan2Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 1546Section 405Section 143(1)5TDS5Section 143(2)4Addition to Income4Section 40A(3)3Section 133A2Section 2452Section 263(1)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. ANAND MINING CORPORATION, JABALPUR

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 104/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

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

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

32. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. The assessee on 16/12/2012 made a quotation of supplying of the fine ore to Shree Rupandham Steel Pvt Ltd. of 1,00,000 Metric Ton (“M.T.” for short) at Rs.3,200/- per MT. On 24/12/2012 Shree Rupandham Steel Pvt Ltd. accepted the order for 1

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KATNI vs. SHRI GANESH PRASAD VISHWAKARMA, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee raised at grounds no

2
Disallowance2
ITA 43/JAB/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 40

1,25,80,754/ - by applying the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. and without complying the CBDT instruction in this regard. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition of the transportation of Rs. 88,01,434/- done by 8 parties named

M/S. VALLABH MARKET,GADARWARA vs. PR. CIT-1, , JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 12/JAB/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(1)

32 flats and 14 shops for Rs. 6.13 crores during the relevant year, in the Tax Audit Report (TAR). 8.2. We have examined the Tax Audit Report (TAR)(Forms 3CB & 3CD) (at PB pgs.54-83) in this respect, to find as under:- a) TDS: The column of TAR is not 34(b), as the ld. Pr. CIT states in his order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. CHETANAYA PROMOTERS AND DEVLOPERS,, JABALPUR

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the Revenue as well as appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 133/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 292BSection 43C

section 133A of the IT Act 1961 in the instant year, books were examined, stocks were valued with coordination of the assessee 4 Co No. 09/JAB/2018 Chetanaya Promoter & Developers and some discrepancies were noticed. Statement recorded during survey proceedings dated 18.10.2014 and bifurcation of the surrender amount is as follows:- S.No Question no Particulars Amount 1 8 Undisclosed cash Rs.895000

RAMESH PRASAD YADAV,KHURAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BINA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/JAB/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleramesh Prasad Yadav, Vs Cpc, Bangalore 01, Sharma Ward, Khurai, Ito, Bina. Madhya Pradesh-470117. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aafpy2747R Assessee By Shri H.S.Modh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 245Section 3Section 7

32,842/- and interest on FDR amounting to Rs.1,55,303/-. The assessee filed his return of income manually before the Income-tax Officer (ITO), Ward-3, Bina, on 26.07.2011. In the return of income filed, the assessee by mistake claimed Tax deducted at source (“TDS”) of Rs.19,687/- deducted on pension under the column of advance tax. The return

PUNJAB HOUSE,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Punjab House V. Income Tax Officer, 1, Star Complex, Opp Dominos, Ward-2(1) Jyoti Talkies Road, Napier Town Annexe Building, Aayakar Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh- Bhawan, Napier Town, 482001. Jabalpur-Madhya Pradesh-482001. Pan: Aaqfp3056R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

1. That Ld. AO in the assessment order framed has disallowed Rs.30,77,800.00 out of cash deposits in bank during the demonetization period on the pretext and notion and disregarding cash book and audited accounts submitted that opening cash on date of demonetization (08.11.2016) is Rs.1,12,700/- and remaining are SBN received during demonetization from debtors of earlier