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.

535 results for “TDS”+ Section 11clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,587Mumbai4,582Bangalore2,355Chennai1,680Pune1,241Kolkata1,189Ahmedabad890Hyderabad823Indore702Jaipur535Chandigarh461Raipur446Cochin427Karnataka308Nagpur306Visakhapatnam289Surat270Cuttack246Rajkot193Lucknow150Amritsar116Jabalpur103Ranchi97Jodhpur86Dehradun76Agra73Patna61Allahabad60Panaji59Guwahati55Telangana44SC21Varanasi14Calcutta13Kerala13Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Punjab & Haryana3J&K3Uttarakhand3Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

TDS63Section 201(1)49Addition to Income49Section 143(3)44Section 14835Section 14731Condonation of Delay29Section 26328Deduction28Section 40

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

ITA 962/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016
For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

Section 13(2), no books of accounts maintained, TDS provisions have not been complied properly, therefore the trust was not eligible for claiming exemption u/s 11

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 535 · Page 1 of 27

...
25
Section 35A25
Disallowance24
ITA 688/JPR/2019[0]Status: Disposed
ITAT Jaipur
06 Jan 2021

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Ranka &For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR)
Section 12ASection 133ASection 271F

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

ITA 201/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 145(3)

TDS deducted. Total 6,26,000/- These persons are not specified persons u/s 13(2) of the Act and the advance given is also not investment/deposits referred to u/s 11(5) and thus there is no violation of section

SHRI PARNAMI PANCHAYAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 14/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani (C.A) &For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 11Section 12ASection 234B

TDS, if admissible, as per provisions of Income Tax Law and related Rules while giving effect to this Appeal Order. Thus, Ground no. 5, is partly allowed. Ground no.2,3& 4 challenge the action of Ld. A.O., in and non giving the benefit of Section 11

KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN,PACHPAHAR vs. DCIT-ACIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 280/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 194J

TDS claimed under section 194Q by the assessee. 11 KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT,CIRCLE-2, KOTA 3.0 In the result

INFOOBJECTS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

For Appellant: Sh. Naman Maloo, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 201Section 40Section 92B(2)

TDS on rent. Hence, these expenses are not covered under the provisions of section 194C, so not liable 11 Infoobjects

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1171/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(2)Section 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

TDS under the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act? 11 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 198/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 166Section 199Section 2(15)

11,686/-, which is taxable in the hands of assessee as discussed above. The assessee is being as AOP and income of the assessee is assessed as per provisions of section 164 of I.T. Act. at Maximum Marginal Rate. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. NFAC

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

ITA 961/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

Section 13(2), no books of accounts maintained, TDS provisions have not been complied properly, therefore the trust was not eligible for claiming exemption u/s 11

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied under section 271C is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 1135/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Ashok (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT) a
Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

section 271C of the Act. 11 State Bank of India vs. ACIT (TDS) 7. For the purposes, it would be relevant

M/S AIRLINK INTERNATIONAL,B-6, SHAKTESH APARTMENT, MOTI DOONGRI ROAD, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 401/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194CSection 194HSection 44A

11). All other parties have deducted TDS u/s 194C. Even Tulsidas Khemji Pvt. Ltd., has deducted TDS u/s 194C on some amount and u/s 194H on some amount. From the copy of ledger account of Total Transport System Pvt. Ltd. along with sample invoice (PB 35-37, Tulsidas Khemji Pvt. Ltd. along with sample invoice

M/S GOLD CREATIONS,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Muzaffar Iqbal (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

section 234E of the Act is not valid and consequently the same is deleted. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 04/12/2018. (foØe flag ;kno) (fot; iky jkWo ½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Jaipur Dated:- 04/12/2018

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 81/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kranti Mehata, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 133ASection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

section 194J of the IT Act, 1961 but no TDS on the above payments were made, therefore the TDS liability comes to Rs.59,11

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 79/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kranti Mehata, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 133ASection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

section 194J of the IT Act, 1961 but no TDS on the above payments were made, therefore the TDS liability comes to Rs.59,11

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 80/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kranti Mehata, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 133ASection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

section 194J of the IT Act, 1961 but no TDS on the above payments were made, therefore the TDS liability comes to Rs.59,11

CANTT BOARD,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 660/JPR/2017[2014-15 (F.Y. 2013-14 FORM 24Q-Q3 )]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2017
For Appellant: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONSFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Mallik (Addl.CIT)
Section 249(2)Section 282Section 282(2)Section 5Section 66A

section 234E, the constitutional validity of which is challenged before us. ITA 660 to 664/JP/2017_ 8 Cantt Board Vs ITO (TDS) 11

GOVERNEMNT SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL OFFICER TOOMLIKABAS, CHAKSU,CHAKSU vs. ACIT CPC TDS GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 964/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2020AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kr. Sharma (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 200ASection 234E

section.] 11 ITA 964/JP/2019_ Govt. Secondary School Vs ACIT, CPC-TDS Section 200A(1) of the Act envisages the method

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 792/JPR/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Sept 2018AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goyal (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 17(2)Section 192Section 201(1)

11. In the light of, what we have said above, we see no error of law in the view taken by the Tribunal to warrant interference by this Court. The appeal, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed.” Thus it was held that for attracting the provisions of section 192 the accrual of payment and actual act of making the payment

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

ITA 623/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl. CIT )
Section 139Section 194CSection 40

TDS and consequently no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is called for. 8. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the provisions of section 197A(1A) has to be read in whole to understand the scheme of the said provision and therefore obtaining the declaration in Form No. 15G/15H will not serve the purpose and objects

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 358/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

TDS compliance. The ld. AO categorically stated that the EDCs/VFPMCs does not fall into category of state government or local authority as per section 10(20) or section 10(46) of the Act or any sub-section 10 of section10 comes to the relief. The EDCs/VFPMCs are also not registered as per provision of section 11