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.

88 results for “TDS”+ Section 5(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,087Delhi5,930Bangalore2,809Chennai2,488Kolkata1,772Pune1,194Hyderabad816Ahmedabad814Cochin640Indore600Patna558Jaipur507Raipur455Karnataka417Nagpur374Chandigarh372Surat282Visakhapatnam255Rajkot204Lucknow180Cuttack144Amritsar136Dehradun125Jodhpur110Jabalpur88Panaji79Ranchi71Telangana70Agra69Guwahati65Allahabad41Varanasi28SC26Calcutta21Kerala17Rajasthan9Himachal Pradesh8Punjab & Haryana7J&K5Orissa4Uttarakhand3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1Bombay1

Key Topics

TDS77Addition to Income38Section 201(1)33Deduction25Section 143(3)21Section 271C20Section 27120Section 25019Section 14717Section 148

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 149/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.29,10,622 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without appreciating that appellant is a sahakari samiti and is maintaining proper books of accounts and deduction claimed under section 80P is allowable to appellant which

Showing 1–20 of 88 · Page 1 of 5

17
Section 20116
Disallowance16

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 151/JAB/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.29,10,622 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without appreciating that appellant is a sahakari samiti and is maintaining proper books of accounts and deduction claimed under section 80P is allowable to appellant which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR vs. ORIENT PAPER MILLS PROP. M/S ORIENT PAPERS &,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 35/JAB/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

2, 4 and 5 relate to the issue whether payment made by the assessee to non-resident company are liable for deduction of tax at source (in short “TDS”) under the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR vs. ORIENT PAPER MILLS PROP. M/S ORIENT PAPERS &,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 34/JAB/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

2, 4 and 5 relate to the issue whether payment made by the assessee to non-resident company are liable for deduction of tax at source (in short “TDS”) under the provisions of section

SKYLINE AGRO PVT. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-1,

In the result, the captioned appeals are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 236/JAB/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur02 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

Section 5(2)Section 6

TDS-1) under section 5(2) read with section 6 of the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, has not been

SKYLINE AGRO PVT. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-1,

In the result, the captioned appeals are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 237/JAB/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur02 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

Section 5(2)Section 6

TDS-1) under section 5(2) read with section 6 of the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, has not been

SKYLINE AGRO PVT. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-1,

In the result, the captioned appeals are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 235/JAB/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

Section 5(2)Section 6

TDS-1) under section 5(2) read with section 6 of the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, has not been

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER , CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE ,JABALPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-2, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

ITA 4/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Shidharth Seth.Adv. ARFor Respondent: Shri.RajeshKumarGupta.Sr.DR
Section 154Section 156Section 190Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 203ASection 204Section 234ESection 285

TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 01.06.2005. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent- authority for intimation for payment of fee under ITA Nos. 4,5,6,7 &23/Jab/2023 Administrative Officer Customs & Central Excise, Jabalpur Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL ,SATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE, SATNA

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

ITA 156/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal V. Acit Circle Satna Blooms Campus, Nh-75, Panna Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Road, Satna (Mp)-485001. Lines, Satna, Mp-485001. Tan/Pan:Ackpa2596H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

2,33,394/- as agriculture income out of Rs. 5,58,660- /earned and declared by the assessee. 6 Considering the facts that assessee had receive a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Smt. Madhu Agrawal and Rs. 45,00,000/- from Ms. Shivani Agarwal by account payee cheque, depositors are identified and capable of lending said amount, transaction

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

2 | P a g e ITA No.99 to 103/Jab/2023 Manessh Sharma vs JCIT-TDS lieu of supreme Court order in the case of the SONA BUILDERS VS CIT the penalty order may kindly be quashed. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the impugned imposition of penalty

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

2 | P a g e ITA No.99 to 103/Jab/2023 Manessh Sharma vs JCIT-TDS lieu of supreme Court order in the case of the SONA BUILDERS VS CIT the penalty order may kindly be quashed. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the impugned imposition of penalty

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

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

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

2 | P a g e ITA No.99 to 103/Jab/2023 Manessh Sharma vs JCIT-TDS lieu of supreme Court order in the case of the SONA BUILDERS VS CIT the penalty order may kindly be quashed. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the impugned imposition of penalty

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

2 | P a g e ITA No.99 to 103/Jab/2023 Manessh Sharma vs JCIT-TDS lieu of supreme Court order in the case of the SONA BUILDERS VS CIT the penalty order may kindly be quashed. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the impugned imposition of penalty

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

2 | P a g e ITA No.99 to 103/Jab/2023 Manessh Sharma vs JCIT-TDS lieu of supreme Court order in the case of the SONA BUILDERS VS CIT the penalty order may kindly be quashed. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the impugned imposition of penalty

RAJENDRA SINGH BAGGA,DAMOH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI

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

ITA 187/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rajendra Singh Bagga, 15 43, Tandon Vs. National Faceless Assessment Bagicha, College Road, Gayatri Nagar, Centre, Delhi [Jurisdiction Damoh, M.P. Officer-Acit Katni-Circle, Katni Pan:Adgpb8418G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 14.10.2024 Whereby Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Learned Ao Under Section 147 Read With Section 144 Dated 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Ex- Party Order Without Providing Adequate Opportunity As Only Three Dates For Hearing Were Fixed & That Too In The Peak Periods Of Filling Of Tax Audits, Income Tax Returns & Accordingly Assessee Was Busy In Filling His Audit Report /Itr & Had Seeked Adjournment Also In This Regard. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Cit (A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of 6 Lacs Under Section 68, When Ao Himself Admitting In The Assessment Order That The Difference Of 5% 'Was Applicable As Allowable Difference Between Circle Rate & Actual Rate Of Purchase Of Property. Hence Forth The Addition Of Rs 6 Lacs Should Have Been Deleted By Ao.

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69

TDS thereupon; no addition under section 69 could has been made as primary requirement of section 69 state that investment should be out of books. Accordingly, addition of Rs 6 lacs should have been deleted by AO. 5. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of the appeal.” 2

INDIAN SOCIETY OF WEED SCIENCE,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXCEMPTION), BHOPAL

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

ITA 48/JAB/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: Na Indian Society Of Weed V. Commissioner Of Income Science Tax (Exemption) Icar-Dwr Campus, Bhopal Maharajpur, Adhartal, Jabalpur-482004. Pan:Aaaai7305R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 02 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 02 2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 12A

TDS compliances by the assessee.” 2. Assessee has made substantial amount of expenditure towards the objects and assessee has not submitted any proof or evidence of activities. Thus, it is clear that the assessee has not commenced its activities towards the attainment of the objects. 2. Section 12AB(1)(b)(i & ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is reproduced

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK , LARON BRANCH,JABALPUR vs. ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 62/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

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

2) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be. (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK, RANIBAUG PANNA BRANCH,SAGAR vs. ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 65/JAB/2022[F.Y- 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Sept 2022

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

2) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be. (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK, MAJHOLI BRANCH,MAJHOLI vs. CITO-TDS-2 JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 55/JAB/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

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

2) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be. (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK, ORCHHA BRANCH ,SAGAR vs. ITO(TDS)-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 57/JAB/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

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

2) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be. (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section