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.

32 results for “TDS”+ Section 301clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai299Delhi296Karnataka105Chennai78Bangalore77Chandigarh71Kolkata48Jaipur32Ahmedabad27Hyderabad25Indore23Kerala19Pune17Lucknow13Rajkot10Visakhapatnam7Surat7Nagpur6Amritsar6Jodhpur3Allahabad2Raipur2Himachal Pradesh1Ranchi1SC1Guwahati1Telangana1Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income28Section 6819Section 143(3)17Section 14713Section 25012Section 244A10Section 1487Section 143(1)6Section 143(2)6TDS

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

301/, on which TDS had been deducted u/s 195 of the Act. However, on verification of the same from the details of payments mentioned in the form 3CEB, it was noticed that the assessee had made payments of expenses to the Associate Enterprises which should have been subjected to TDS u/s 195 of the Act. As tax has been deducted

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

6
Natural Justice6
Unexplained Cash Credit6

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

TDS was also deducted. After the submission no enquiry was conducted and the issue of additional evidence filed were not discussed with while rendering the finding by the ld. CIT(A). 29 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT He submitted at page 85 and 86 being the acknowledgement of filling the online application for additional evidence relied upon

DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 846/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Jitendra Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

TDS has been paid u/s 194C, the copy of ITR\nacknowledgments have been provided, all the transaction have been carried out\nthrough the banking channels. Hence, the said expenses cannot be help to be\nbogus in nature.\nThe appellant cannot be forced/compelled to produce its parties to prove\ngenuineness of the transactions. By submitting the necessary documents, the\nappellant

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 3

TDS was deducted is shown in advance received and not in the sales of the assessee company. Therefore the sale consideration of property in ITR is less than consideration. The flats are fully prepared in AY 2015-16 and then they are sold. On perusal of assessment record, it is seen that AO has not carried out any investigation/enquiry

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2 NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

ITA 428/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Parwal, CA and Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 244A

301/-. Interest under section 244A of the Act was granted by the AO amounting to Rs. 40,29,427/- which was calculated from 1 April 2016 to 31 October 2018 i.e. for a period of 31 months. The refund was received by the appellant only on 4 June 2019 in its bank account i.e. after 6 months of passing

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)

section 161 to 164 of the Act. Accordingly, once the respective shares of the beneficiaries are found to be terminable, the income is required to be taxed in the hands of that respective sharer or the beneficiaries but certainly not in the hands of the Trustees which has already been shown in the present case. Accordingly, AO’s action

MAYA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY, JAIPUR

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

ITA 823/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2023-24
For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 194HSection 250Section 44A

TDS of Rs.1,25,000 was duly deducted\nunder section 194H. Since income from Notus Tech Consulting Services Private Limited\nwas not received in the relevant AY 2023-24 but in next year i.e. was received in FY\n2023-24 and after calculating final income the assessee filed revised return on 25-12-\n2023 duly before the due date

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

TDS was deducted or not the nature of payment is\nrequired to be taxed in the hands of the assessee and thus, based\non the certificate of payment being placed on record stating that\nthe payment is as per provision of section 28 of the Land\nAcquisition Act we are of the considered we that the same is\ncovered

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

section 147 r.w.s.144 vide his order dated 28.03.2022 for the\nyear under consideration. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before the ld. CIT (A), who after considering the contentions of the assessee\nas well as the material available on record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.\nBeing aggrieved with the order

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

section 147 r.w.s.144 vide his order dated 28.03.2022 for the\nyear under consideration. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before the ld. CIT (A), who after considering the contentions of the assessee\nas well as the material available on record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.\nBeing aggrieved with the order

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

section 147 r.w.s.144 vide his order dated 28.03.2022 for the\nyear under consideration. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before the ld. CIT (A), who after considering the contentions of the assessee\nas well as the material available on record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.\nBeing aggrieved with the order

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

section 147 r.w.s.144 vide his order dated 28.03.2022 for the\nyear under consideration. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before the ld. CIT (A), who after considering the contentions of the assessee\nas well as the material available on record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.\n\nBeing aggrieved with the order

M/S STANFORD DEVELOPERS,NEEMRANA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BEHROR

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

ITA 405/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT- DR a
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

TDS and faced the levy of GST and Service Tax by a trading transaction cannot be considered as unexplained credit within the criteria of section 68 of the Act and thereby we direct the ld. AO to 38 M/s Stanford Developers, Alwar. delete the same. We get support of our view from the decision of our own Rajasthan High Court

DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

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

ITA 278/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Rahis Mohammed, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 2Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 5

301 707 (Raj) LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADEPT 3435 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Rahis Mohammed, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 23/02/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 25 /02/2022

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the\ncross objection of the assessee are allowed

ITA 455/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Mrs. Raksha Birla CA (V.C)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

TDS) [2023] 154 taxmann.com 465 (SC) passed order as under-\nORDER\n1. Delay condoned.\n2. Leave granted.\nThis two sentence order establishes the application of mind of Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt of India. The application of mind is the whole process through which the all\nthe facts and questions of law has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court\nand

BAREFOOT COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL,KISHANGARH vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n20/02/2024

ITA 596/JPR/2023[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2024-2025
For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(c)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

section 11(4A) for claiming exemption.\n17. Profits earned by the assessee from such incidental business activities are being applied\nfor charitable activities only and accumulation, if any, falls within the permissible limits as\npresribted. Copies of ITR & Computation of total income of the assessee for 3 Financial Years\nare enclosed to verify the above fact. Hence the objections raised

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 298/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT)
Section 250Section 68

section 68 & 115BBE of the I.T. Act, as the addition has already been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) the same was not decided by the ld. CIT(A). Ground no. 4 is related to challenging the proceeding on account of mechanical approval u/s. 153D of the Act, since we have concurred the findings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 296/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT)
Section 250Section 68

section 68 & 115BBE of the I.T. Act, as the addition has already been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) the same was not decided by the ld. CIT(A). Ground no. 4 is related to challenging the proceeding on account of mechanical approval u/s. 153D of the Act, since we have concurred the findings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 297/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT)
Section 250Section 68

section 68 & 115BBE of the I.T. Act, as the addition has already been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) the same was not decided by the ld. CIT(A). Ground no. 4 is related to challenging the proceeding on account of mechanical approval u/s. 153D of the Act, since we have concurred the findings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 299/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT)
Section 250Section 68

section 68 & 115BBE of the I.T. Act, as the addition has already been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) the same was not decided by the ld. CIT(A). Ground no. 4 is related to challenging the proceeding on account of mechanical approval u/s. 153D of the Act, since we have concurred the findings