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.

9 results for “TDS”+ Section 246A(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi175Indore122Chennai109Mumbai103Pune79Bangalore31Ahmedabad23Jabalpur23Dehradun22Raipur21Kolkata16Chandigarh16Rajkot15Surat11Nagpur11Jodhpur11Jaipur9Cochin9Panaji8Visakhapatnam7Hyderabad7Amritsar5Lucknow4Karnataka4Cuttack1Allahabad1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 234E11Section 271(1)(c)10Section 271D10Penalty7Section 200A(1)(c)6Section 249(2)5Addition to Income5Section 143(3)4Section 2004Section 200A(1)

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

TDS | 1,44,565 | Nil | Nil\n\nThus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 18-83), following disallowance\nmade by the AO stood confirmed:-\n\n5\nITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025\nRAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR\n\nDisallowance of CSR Expenses\nDisallowance u/s 14A\nRs.1,41,42,000/-\nRs.71,75,575/-\n\nAfter

4
TDS4
Limitation/Time-bar3

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

TDS 15,65,426 Nil Nil Thus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 25-94), following disallowance made by the AO stood confirmed:- Disallowance of CSR Expenses Rs.40,42,000/- Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.37,19,337/- After the order of Hon’ble ITAT, AO again issued notice dt.14.03.2019 (PB 17) to show cause why penalty u/s 271(1)(c

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1278/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

TDS)--Accordingly, six months from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of penalty was initiated expired on 30th June, 2010--Hence, the order imposing penalty under s. 271C could have been passed on or before 30th June, 2010-- Therefore, order levying penalty under s. 271C passed by the Addl. CIT on 18th

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O&M), SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax

ITA 595/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2020AY 2016-17
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rooni Pal (DCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 120Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 246A

1)(c) by treating the fee as penalty and an adjustment made in the TDS statement(s). As per the provisions of Section 246A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O &M) PUSHKAR, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax

ITA 519/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2020AY 2017-18
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rooni Pal (DCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 120Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 246A

1)(c) by treating the fee as penalty and an adjustment made in the TDS statement(s). As per the provisions of Section 246A

JAGDISH CHANDRA SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 376/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 44A

246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact, the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact with effect from 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore

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

c) to (f) of Section 200A by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01/6/2015. It was stated in the written submissions that the fee for late filing the statement U/s 234E can be levied only on the issue of intimation U/s 200A w.e.f. 01/6/2015 only. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. Union of India

SUBHASH CHAND NAWAL (HUF),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

ITA 1037/JPR/2017[2014-15 (26Q-Q1, 2, 3, 4TH)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2018
For Appellant: None (One set W.S. filed)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 192Section 200(3)Section 206CSection 234ESection 249(2)Section 5

c) to (f) of Section 200A by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01/6/2015. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. Union of India (2015) 229 taxman 596 (Bom) while examining the constitutional validity of Section 234E has upheld the validity and also held as under: 9. We have heard the learned counsel, and perused

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 538/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Tetuka, Adv., ARFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

246A of the Act in Form No. 35 on 26.12.2019 (Refer page No. 63-66 of Paper Book). During the pendency of the Appeal against the confirmed demand, Appellant’s return of income for AY 2018-19 was processed by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) vide Order dated 13.01.2020 issued under section 143(1) of the Act for refund