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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Section 272A(2)(g)clear

Sorted by relevance

Pune104Chennai84Delhi74Mumbai55Bangalore39Karnataka26Ahmedabad19Cochin18Nagpur17Visakhapatnam13Allahabad12Kolkata9Agra7Lucknow6Jaipur5Raipur4Indore3Jodhpur2Chandigarh2Guwahati1Cuttack1Kerala1SC1Hyderabad1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)4Section 404Addition to Income4Section 142(1)3Section 2743Section 272A(2)(K)3TDS3Section 69A2Section 271(1)2Cash Deposit

ARGUS GOLDEN TRADES INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

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

ITA 522/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (JCIT)
Section 272A(2)(K)Section 273B

TDS. S.No. Veena Theater v.CIT(High Court Case of Assessee of Patna) [2010] 322 ITR 260 (PAT.) 1. Penalty u/s 272A(2)(g) Penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) 2. The reasons provided by the assessee In the case of assessee the reasons put for non filing the return within time forward by the assessee has direct nexus was that there

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRATEEK KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

2
Deduction2
Penalty2
ITA 552/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed
ITAT Jaipur
10 Nov 2017
AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Prithviraj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132(4)Section 68

TDS. (iii) Capacity proved:- The assessee has filed copy of balance sheet and profit and loss account of the firm. The turnover of the firm is Rs 219.58 crores. The assessee has also filed copy of bank statement of the firm which shows huge number of transaction of high value. There is no onus on the assessee to prove source

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1053/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 40

272A(1)(c) was imposed by the JCIT, Range for non compliance of summon issued under section 131 of the IT Act. It is also noted from the remand report of the AO that again an opportunity was provide to the appellant by the AO to explain its case, however, still no compliance was made on the date fixed. This

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

ITA 169/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

272A(1) Refused or failed to: (a) Answer questions. (b) Sig. Statements. (c) Attene to give evidence or produce books of accounts etc. in compliance with summons under section 131(1). (d) Apply for allotment of permanent account number in term sof Section 139A. You are hereby requested to appear before me on 21-03-2014 at Room

ANSHU SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 45/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

Section 69A. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts of the case i) by treating the cash deposit of Rs. 2499800/- during 01/4/2016 to 31/10/2016 out of the opening cash balance as on 01/4/2016 as 'explained", ii) by treating the cash deposit of Rs. 1522500/- during 09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016 as unexplained