Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

3 results for “TDS”+ Section 87clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,265 Mumbai1,163 Bangalore508 Kolkata302 Chennai300 Ahmedabad253 Hyderabad247 Indore177 Jaipur146 Karnataka117 Chandigarh114 Cochin100 Pune82 Cuttack66 Raipur61 Rajkot49 Visakhapatnam45 Surat39 Dehradun31 Lucknow30 Jodhpur26 Nagpur24 Agra23 Guwahati20 Kerala17 Ranchi16 Allahabad15 Amritsar12 Telangana10 Varanasi10 Patna6 SC6 Panaji4 Jabalpur3 Calcutta2 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 234E5 Section 200A4 Section 404 Section 44A4 Section 194J3 TDS3 Condonation of Delay2

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

CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICE ANNUPPUR,ANNUPPUR vs. ITO-TDS-2,JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 84/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 & 89/Jab/2023 (A.Y: 2014-15 To 2019-20) Chief Medical & Vs. Ito, Tds-2, Health Office, Room No. 102, Aayakar Amarkant Road, Bhawan, Napier Town, Annuppur-484224, Jabalpur-482001, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh.

For Appellant: Shri.Sapan Usrethe. Adv.ARFor Respondent: Shri.SaadKidwai. CIT -DR

Section 194JSection 201(1)

TDS. However, payment made for equipment’s like pace maker, ITA No. 84,85,86,87,88 &89/JAB/2023 Chief Medical and Health Office stunt etc Cannot be said to be payment for professional fee These are the equipment’s put in heart and the cost of such equipment’s cannot be said to be professional fee paid to the Doctors

SANJAY KALE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 234/JAB/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 234/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " " / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Sanjay Kale, Income Tax Officer-1, Vishnu Nagar, Parasia Road, Vs Chhindwara (Mp) Chhindwara (Mp) Pan : Amcpk 1268 L / (Appellant) / (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 22.09.2015 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Jbp/Ito/W/I/Cwa/203/10-11, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Framed On 24.12.2010 By The Ito-1, Chhindwara.

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(4)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44A

TDS. Further, the assessee, in order to conduct the business more expeditiously, entered into a sub-contract with Mr. Kamal Kumar Aheliya, thereby agreeing to share 50% commission. It has further contended that the gross receipts during the year was much below than the prescribed limit of gross turnover required for the purpose of application of provisions of Section 44AB