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 77clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,285Mumbai1,212Bangalore721Chennai355Kolkata284Hyderabad228Ahmedabad183Indore182Cochin165Jaipur133Chandigarh123Karnataka121Raipur83Pune65Cuttack44Surat42Visakhapatnam33Rajkot27Jodhpur26Lucknow23Nagpur22Guwahati21Agra20Ranchi20Amritsar18Kerala17Telangana14Allahabad13Dehradun13Panaji12Jabalpur7Patna6SC4Varanasi4Calcutta2Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 80P10Section 201(1)8Section 1488TDS7Section 2506Addition to Income5Section 1474Disallowance4Section 43B2Section 143(2)

JAGANNATH DAS PREMVATI WELFARE SOCIETY,WRIGHT TOWN vs. ITO TDS-1, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 89/JAB/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 201(1)Section 250

77,299/- for the F.Y. 2010-11 along with interest of Rs.2,18,833/-; total TDS default of Rs.3,05,030/- for the F.Y. 2011- 12 along with interest of Rs.1,40,314/- and total TDS default for the F.Y. 2012-13 of Rs.3,44,266/- along with interest of Rs.1,17,050/-, under sections

JAGANNATH DAS PREMVATI WELFARE SOCIETY,JABALPUR vs. ITO TDS-1, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

2
Deduction2
Limitation/Time-bar2
ITA 91/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 201(1)Section 250

77,299/- for the F.Y. 2010-11 along with interest of Rs.2,18,833/-; total TDS default of Rs.3,05,030/- for the F.Y. 2011- 12 along with interest of Rs.1,40,314/- and total TDS default for the F.Y. 2012-13 of Rs.3,44,266/- along with interest of Rs.1,17,050/-, under sections

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

TDS was also deducted and it is duly reflecting in the Form 26AS and duly shown in the ITR and it was disallowed on frivolous grounds. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without

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

TDS was also deducted and it is duly reflecting in the Form 26AS and duly shown in the ITR and it was disallowed on frivolous grounds. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-KATNI, KATNI vs. M/S. GAJRAJ MINING PVT. L:TD., SINGRAULI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee is dismissed

ITA 27/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT(DR)
Section 2Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

77,81743/-, travelling expenses of Rs. 50,80,623/- and business promotion expenses of Rs. 2,82,229/-. The entire expense were to the tune of Rs. 2,05,82,834/-. Therefore, the AO on ad-hoc basis disallowed sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- and added back to the income of the appellant holding that these expenses

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

77,800.00 of old currency notes held in hand of 08.11.2016 including car sale amount were deposited during demonetization period after 08.11.2016. 1.2. That the Ld. AO. Has disregarded the assessee reply that cash deposits in SBN (Specified Bank Notes during demonetization relates to realization from debtors of earlier sale including cash sales prior to demonetization period for Page

VISHAL DATT,JABALPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , JABALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 79/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 May 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri Sanjay Seth, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

TDS\nhad been deducted on payment. In case of labour charges there are very\nfew instances where receiver signature were not found due-to the reason\nthat the amount was collected by the mukaddam i.e. head of the group of\nlabourer same 'were explained to the AO but he had not accepted and\nmade the adhoc disallowance against the order