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.

295 results for “TDS”+ Section 2(19)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,169Mumbai3,160Bangalore1,647Chennai1,134Kolkata608Pune535Hyderabad417Ahmedabad402Jaipur295Indore256Karnataka211Chandigarh208Raipur206Cochin139Visakhapatnam128Nagpur112Rajkot104Lucknow94Surat90Cuttack42Ranchi40Jodhpur35Panaji31Patna28Telangana28Guwahati26Amritsar25Agra22Dehradun21Allahabad15SC15Jabalpur10Kerala10Calcutta10Himachal Pradesh6Varanasi6Uttarakhand3Rajasthan2Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)62Addition to Income62Section 26342TDS40Section 142(1)37Section 201(1)34Section 14832Section 14731Disallowance30Section 40

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 744/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

19 crores and in terms of the\nconditions contained therein, the assessee received a sum of Rs.6 crores as\nadvance consideration by cheque payment from the purchaser. The Assessing\nOfficer found that on the date of execution and registration of the sale deed, i. e.,\non May 2, 2013, the guideline value of the property as fixed by the State

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

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 295 · Page 1 of 15

...
28
Deduction28
Section 143(2)27
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, filing of PAN of the Payee-Transporter alone is sufficient and no confirmation letter as required by the learned CIT is required 18 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company v) Sections 194C(6) and Section 194C(7) are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 688/JPR/2019[0]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 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

19 ITA 688/JP/2019_ M/s Wholesale Cloth Merchant Association Vs Pr.CIT of sub-section (4A) of section 139, within the time allowed under that section. 1.2 In the matter, the memorandum explaining the relevant provisions of the Finance Bill, 2017 reads as under: "as per the existing provisions of said section, the entities registered under section 12AA are required to file

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/JPR/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2022AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal. CIT
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 5

2. Against the work performed certain payments (having nature of contractual payments etc.) from F.Y. 2016-17 to F.Y. 2018-19 have been paid by various payers. 3. On impugned payments, TDS u/s 194C/194D/194H of the Income Tax Act have been deducted by the payers entities. 4. As such, the applicant is receiving contractual receipts/insurance commission/ commission payments. Hence, impugned

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 166/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

section 195. Regarding testing expenses, it is seen that few payments were made in cash in INR but since they are very low and do not exceed the prescribed limit for making TDS, therefore, even though certain payments were made in India, yet no TDS is required to be made. Balance payment towards testing charges was since made

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

2,09,560/- by invoking Rule 37BA TDS claimed in ITR under various sections was as under: - Sec. Nature of receipts TDS as Amount Corresponding Income per 26AS shown in offered in ITR (₹) (₹) 26AS as receipts (₹) 194A Interest 1,05,991 10,59,897 10,59,897 194H Commission 97,862 19

KRISHAN PAL SINGH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1268/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

For Appellant: Shri N. K. Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

19 Taxman.com 220 (HP) which after relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam, HUF [2009] 182 Taxman 368 /315ITR 1 (SC) has held that interest received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is not interest under section 34 but is in the nature of compensation and therefore

ARVIND KUMAR AGRAWAL,GURGAON vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOEM TAX DEPARTMENT

In the results, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 139/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

19 of the paper book submitted on 28.06.2024, as per clause 'Z', "Prior to the execution of this Agreement the Purchaser/s, after deducting the statutory deduction as TDS as per Section 194-IA of Income Tax Act 1961, has/have paid to the Promoters a sum of Rs. 20,23,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Only) being the earnest

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1227/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

19. 23(1A), 23(2) & 28 of\nthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The total compensation included\nRs.1,84,09,546 u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is\nmentioned as interest.\n5. Thus, in the instant case, the fact on record is that the\ncompensation received consists of interest received along with\nenhancement of compensation. The amount received

ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

19. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. From perusal of the record, we observed that the A.O. has reopened the case of the assessee for escaping 21 Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi. the income of Rs.1,15,00,500/- on account of cash deposit in his bank account and assessee

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 243/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37

19 and 22]\n“..4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in view of\nthe amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022 to Section 14A of\nthe Act by inserting a non obstante clause and an explanation after\nthe proviso, a change in law has been brought about and\nconsequently, the judgments relied upon by the authorities below

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 652/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 195Section 40

TDS u/s 195 and consequently the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act cannot be invoked for making the disallowance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance so made by the AO U/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is hereby deleted and ground of appeal is allowed. 18. In ground of appeal No. 2

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

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

19 and 21)\n(In favour of revenue)\"\nIn the present case also, the receipts of amounts for land and construction\nactivity are treated as commercial nature and hence, the AO shall treat the\nreceipts as business receipts and the surplus as per the accounts should be\ntaxed as the benefit of section 11 are not to be given

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: \nMrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

19 and 21)\n(In favour of revenue)\"\n\nIn the present case also, the receipts of amounts for land and construction\nactivity are treated as commercial nature and hence, the AO shall treat the\nreceipts as business receipts and the surplus as per the accounts should be\ntaxed as the benefit of section 11 are not to be given

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

19. Here, on facts, the Tribunal noted that the AO only discussed the provisions of section 14A(l) but has not justified how the expenditure the Assessee incurred during the relevant year related to the income not forming part of its total income. The AO, according to the Tribunal, straightaway applied Rule 8D. Indeed, there must be a proximate relationship

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

TDS of Rs.21,850/- has been deducted. The same is also evident from Form 26AS. As per the contract assessee was to provide IT training to the students. 2. The AO observed that the assessee had made payment against credit card bills amounting to Rs.5,26,000/- and earned contract receipts of Rs.13,90,000/-. Assessee has not responded

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 771/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

2), Kota\ntransferred this case back to the O/o Ward 4(1), Chandigarh vide office letter No.\n1064 dated 9.10.2017 on the ground that the appellant as presently not residing\nthere and was not traceable.\n5.3 During the assessment proceeding despite giving multiple opportunities, the\nappellant did not file any submission before AO. Accordingly order u/s 144r.w.s.\n147

WORLDWELFARE HEALTH FEDERATION,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

ITA 350/JPR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab. No Show Cause Notice Before The Rejection Of The Application Was Issued To The Assessee. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Not Given Adequate Time For Submitting Responses To Notices U/S 133(6). Notices Were Issued On 24/03/2023 (Friday) To Three Parties & Without Waiting For Their Responses, The Order Of Rejection Was Issued On 28/03/2023 (Tuesday) In A Hurried Manner. 4. Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend In Any Manner The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Saraswat (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 12ASection 133(6)

19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. There was a significant rise in the demand for medical research studies in the post-covid era and assessee-trust was contacted by pharma companies to undertake such research studies. The research activities of the trust commenced after the joining of Dr Shiven Bhandari wef 15/11/2021 in the capacity of Trustee-Director. c) Assessee