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.

211 results for “TDS”+ Section 2(22)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,742Delhi2,178Bangalore1,477Chennai1,068Kolkata571Ahmedabad292Indore267Hyderabad264Cochin232Jaipur211Pune205Karnataka172Patna168Raipur155Chandigarh130Visakhapatnam129Nagpur97Lucknow74Surat68Rajkot56Cuttack41Ranchi30Guwahati30Agra21Amritsar19Jodhpur17SC14Telangana12Kerala9Dehradun7Allahabad6Jabalpur6Varanasi5Panaji4Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Rajasthan1Calcutta1Gauhati1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)80Addition to Income65Section 26355TDS39Section 80I34Deduction30Section 14829Section 4029Section 6827Section 143(2)

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 213/JPR/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

22,420/- which is eligible for deduction u/s.80P.\nSimilarly, gross total income from interest on term deposit will come to Rs.\n7,84,876/- which is not eligible for deduction u/s.80P.\nAggrieved from the above order of Assessing Officer, assessee\npreferred an appeal before the Id. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised\nthe relevant finding

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

Showing 1–20 of 211 · Page 1 of 11

...
26
Section 142(1)26
Disallowance24

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

2) Where any sum referred to in sub-section (1) is credited to any account, whether called "Suspense account" or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee and the provisions of this section

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

ITA 753/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43CSection 50

22 per sq.ft—Tribunal\ncommitted no error in allowing appeal of assessee—Revenue's appeal\ndismissed.\nThe ratio of these decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the case.\nIn the case of the assessee, the Learned Assessing Officer failed to refer the\nmatter of valuation to the Valuation Cell as as laid down in Sec. 43CA(2) read

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

TDS u/s 194C was deducted, ld. CIT(E) opined that the assessee society was carrying out activities of commercial nature i.e. activities in the nature of trade, commerce and business for consideration and with profit motive. 1.3 Income in Income and Expenditure Account from such commercial activities was calculated and it was observed that from

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

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 submitted by the ld CIT-DR that in view of above findings, the activities of the assessee Trust falls under the purview of Section 12AA

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)

E-ITR for A.Y. 2016-17 on 28-09-2016 thereby declaring total income of Rs.5,50,08,880/- which was further revised on 29-09-2016 thereby declaring Rs.5,49,71,640/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Therefore, notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act was issued on 9- 09-2017 by fixing

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

e) of the IT Act.\n2.3 As per clause 34(c) of tax audit report in form 3CD, an\ninterest of Rs.55,810/-is paid on delayed payment of TDS\nwhich is not eligible for deduction either u/s 36(1)(iii) or u/s 37\nof the Act but the same stands allowed.\n2.4 As per note 35 to balance sheet

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

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

E-assessment Scheme, 2019 for the reasons '1. Income from Other Sources 2. Refund Claim'. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 28.09.2019 and notice u/s 142(1) was also issued. In response to notice u/s 142(1) dated 01.01.2020, the assessee has submitted that no business activities were done during the relevant year. Regarding income from other sources

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

22) From a further reading of Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 attached to Section 148, it is clear that the provisions Under Section 148 for issuance of notice before making assessment re-assessment or re-computation under Section 147 operate in two different ways. For the purpose of Section 148, where Section 148A is applicable, Explanation 1 provides: xxxxx xxxx

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

22) From a further reading of Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 attached to Section 148, it is clear that the provisions Under Section 148 for issuance of notice before making assessment re-assessment or re-computation under Section 147 operate in two different ways. For the purpose of Section 148, where Section 148A is applicable, Explanation 1 provides: xxxxx xxxx

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)

22 To organize event, seminars/workshops at national & international level. Thus, the main objectives of the assessee-trust are centred around `Medical relief’ including `Medical Research’, `Medical Education’ and `Help of poor patients’ etc. b) No activities could be conducted by the assessee-trust during the FY 2017-18, 2018- 19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. There was a significant rise

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

E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai 90-107 in ITA No. 557/Mum/2023 dated 23.05.2023 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the ld. PCIT has no jurisdiction to excise the power vested u/s. 263 of the Act as the assessee’s address as per the assessment order as well

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

E)ITA No.906/JP/2018 order dated 22.01.2019 (Jaipur)\n(Trib.)\nWhere the notice issued u/s 148 has been received back unserved, it is\nincumbent upon the AO to take steps in terms of issuing another notice after\ndetermining the reasons for non-service and/or alternatively, service the notice\nthrough affixture. However, where no such further steps have been taken

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

ITA 173/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Mrs. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 142Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 292BSection 5

22,731/- (Rs.96,133/- and Rs.26,598/-) under section\n201(1)/201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 on the assesseedeductor bank, vide his order\ndated 20.11.2018. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal\nto the ld. CIT (A). During the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) fixed the case\nfor hearing

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

E-\nassessment Scheme 201on the following issues;\nS. No.\ni.\nIssues\nWinning from Lottery / Cross word Puzzles / Horse Races\nii.\nRefund Claim\niii.\nSales Turnover / Receipts\nStatutory notices as required from time to time were issued and\nserved on the assessee. In response the assessee submitted the\ndetails along with requisite documents and evidences called for\nwhich are kept

LODHA FOUNDATION, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 12/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck 7751L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Acit, Circle-2, Kota ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck7751L ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Section 145 of the Act. Therefore, the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the revenue also does not deserve acceptance.” 18. It is further observed that the AO has not brought any special reason as to why he is taking a departure from the past settled history between the assessee and the Department in as much as all along

LODHA FOUNDATION, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 11/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck 7751L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Acit, Circle-2, Kota ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck7751L ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Section 145 of the Act. Therefore, the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the revenue also does not deserve acceptance.” 18. It is further observed that the AO has not brought any special reason as to why he is taking a departure from the past settled history between the assessee and the Department in as much as all along

KAIZEN ENTREPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT-DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 156/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck 7751L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Acit, Circle-2, Kota ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck7751L ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Section 145 of the Act. Therefore, the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the revenue also does not deserve acceptance.” 18. It is further observed that the AO has not brought any special reason as to why he is taking a departure from the past settled history between the assessee and the Department in as much as all along

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. KAIZEN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 390/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck 7751L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Acit, Circle-2, Kota ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck7751L ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Section 145 of the Act. Therefore, the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the revenue also does not deserve acceptance.” 18. It is further observed that the AO has not brought any special reason as to why he is taking a departure from the past settled history between the assessee and the Department in as much as all along