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 92clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,345Delhi1,219Bangalore609Kolkata303Chennai300Indore176Ahmedabad163Chandigarh132Karnataka122Jaipur122Hyderabad100Raipur91Pune87Cochin69Visakhapatnam50Cuttack39Surat30Rajkot30Lucknow26Nagpur19Jodhpur16Guwahati16Ranchi15Amritsar14Patna12Telangana11Jabalpur7Allahabad5SC5Varanasi5Agra3Calcutta2Kerala1Dehradun1Rajasthan1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 271C20Section 27120Section 201(1)10Addition to Income7TDS6Section 2505Deduction5Penalty5Section 43B2

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

92,517/- (Forty five Lakh Ninety two thousand five hundred and seventeen only) for which the deductor is treated as assessee in default and required to pay the same as per demand notice issued along with this order. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271C & Section 272BB(1) provides for penalty for failure to obtain

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

92,517/- (Forty five Lakh Ninety two thousand five hundred and seventeen only) for which the deductor is treated as assessee in default and required to pay the same as per demand notice issued along with this order. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271C & Section 272BB(1) provides for penalty for failure to obtain

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

92,517/- (Forty five Lakh Ninety two thousand five hundred and seventeen only) for which the deductor is treated as assessee in default and required to pay the same as per demand notice issued along with this order. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271C & Section 272BB(1) provides for penalty for failure to obtain

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

92,517/- (Forty five Lakh Ninety two thousand five hundred and seventeen only) for which the deductor is treated as assessee in default and required to pay the same as per demand notice issued along with this order. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271C & Section 272BB(1) provides for penalty for failure to obtain

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

92,517/- (Forty five Lakh Ninety two thousand five hundred and seventeen only) for which the deductor is treated as assessee in default and required to pay the same as per demand notice issued along with this order. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271C & Section 272BB(1) provides for penalty for failure to obtain

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

92,400/ - made by the Assessing Officer being disallowance out of interest unde r sec. 2 CO No. 05/ JAB/2020 Gajraj Mining P Ltd. 36(1) (iii) on account of diversion of borrowed capital for non - business purpose by the assessee company. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in restricting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-SATNA, SATNA vs. M/S. RAM KUMAR SURESH KUMAR, SATNA

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

ITA 136/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gaaleasst. Commissioner Of Vs Shri Ram Kumar Income Tax, Circle-Satna, Suresh Kumar, Satna Birla Road, Satna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaffr3899D Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Fca Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 O R D E R Per Om Prakash Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 12.03.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Jabalpur [In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Raising Following Grounds:

Section 133(6)Section 68

section 68 is not sustainable. We therefore delete the same and allow ground No.3 of assessee's appeal. 16 | P a g e ACIT vs Shri Ram Kumar Suresh Kumar (vii) In the case of Megha S. Shah v DCIT [2013] 38 CCH 76 the hon'ble ITAT Ahemdabad 'C' Bench has held as under :- "11. We have heard