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.

16 results for “TDS”+ Section 80G(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai116Delhi97Bangalore51Ahmedabad44Chennai28Chandigarh28Kolkata24Pune17Jaipur16Hyderabad11Indore9Rajkot8Lucknow8Surat4Agra3Amritsar3Raipur3Ranchi3Allahabad2SC2Jodhpur2Cuttack1Visakhapatnam1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 80G22Section 12A14Addition to Income12Section 1110Deduction10Section 271(1)(c)9Section 1489Section 143(3)8Disallowance8Section 10

UTKARASH SANASTHA,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 561/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2024

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

For Appellant: Miss Priya Choudhary-ProxyFor Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 13(3)

80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in respective appeals are as under:- 2 UKARSH SANSTHA VS CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR “1. Under the facts and circumstances, order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption under section 12AB of the 1.T. Act bad in law being non speaking, ignoring without considering the submission

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

7
TDS7
Penalty7
ITA 159/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh Addl. CIT a
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80G

TDS on interest payment to M/s SE Investment Ltd. and disallowance of Rs. 1,27,67,676/-on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80G and the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench Jaipur vide its order dated 01.10.2018 set aside the aforesaid issues to the file of the AO to verify the claim of the assessee that recipient NBFCs

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. NASH FASHION(INDIA) LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

ITA 89/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh Addl. CIT a
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80G

TDS on interest payment to M/s SE Investment Ltd. and disallowance of Rs. 1,27,67,676/-on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80G and the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench Jaipur vide its order dated 01.10.2018 set aside the aforesaid issues to the file of the AO to verify the claim of the assessee that recipient NBFCs

NASH FASHIONS (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 346/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri M. L. Borad (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 263Section 40Section 80G

5 reads as under: "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no deduction shall be allowed under this section in respect of any donation unless such donation is of a sum of money." 7. After the insertion of the aforesaid Explanation, there cannot be any doubt that, for purposes of claiming deduction, only cash amounts which

BANSAL CLASSES PVIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, revenue’s ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 698/JPR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11
Section 40A(2)(b)

80G.” 3. In its first ground of appeal, the assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in not allowing the software expenses of Rs. 99,031/- as revenue expenditure and treating them as capital expenditure. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

ITA 160/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh Addl. CIT
Section 40Section 80G

TDS on interest payment to M/s SE\nInvestment Ltd. and disallowance of Rs.1,27,67,676/-on account of\ndisallowance of deduction u/s 80G and the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench Jaipur\nvide its order dated 01.10.2018 set aside the aforesaid issues to the file of the\nAO to verify the claim of the assessee that recipient NBFCs has taken

AGRASEN MEDICAL RELIEF & RESEARCH SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO(E), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1026/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1026/JPR/2025 निर्धरणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2016-17 Agrasen Medical Relief & Research Society Central Spine, Sector -7, Vidhyadhr Nagar Jaipur - 302 039 (Raj) बनाम Vs. अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAATA 7540F The ITO (E) Ward - 1 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby :Shri P.C.Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudh

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 2(15)Section 80G

5 of section 80G. We also find that AO in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 10.2.2014 for AY 2011-12 has accepted that assessee is registered u/s 12AA of the Act. The assessee has subsequently been granted fresh registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act, the precondition of which is that the trust or institution

AGRASEN MEDICAL RELIEF & RESEARCH SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO(E), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80G

5 of section 80G. It may also be noted that the AO in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dt. 10.2.2014 for AY 2011-12 (PB 44-45) has accepted that assessee is registered u/s 12AA of the Act. The assessee has subsequently been granted fresh registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act, the precondition of which

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

ITA 170/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 195(1)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A

TDS on the commission. Consequently, provisions of section 40(a) (i) of the Act were not attracted for the purposes of disallowance of said amount. 9 Derewala Industries Limited vs. ACIT/DCIT 15. Applying the above cited decisions to the facts of the present case, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by Ld. CIT (A) deserves

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 544/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original return, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of maximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no action could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss of revenue

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 546/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original return, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of maximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no action could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss of revenue

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 545/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original return, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of maximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no action could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss of revenue

TIRUPATI COLLEGE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

ITA 452/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sharvan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, (CIT)
Section 10Section 143(3)

80G of the IT Act vide registration certificate dated 26/29.10.2010(PB18), thereafter approval under section 10 (23C) (vi) of the tax Act. 1961 vide notification No. 18/2010-11 endorsed vide letter no CCIT/ Addl. CIT (H.qrs)/JPR/10 (23C) (vi)/2010-11/3049 dated 23/25.11.2010 has also been granted to the assessee. The assessee society is filling its return of income regularly and assessment

CREDAI RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

ITA 1/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 80G

section 194I (b) which appeared in 26AS of assessee for F.Y. 2016-17 which amount of rent being Rs. 19,02,500/- from which TDS deducted is Rs. 1,90,250/- (details submitted). The assessee adjusted the said rent and rent received for remaining other stalls/pavilion booked in April, 2017 in its accounts on 26-04-2017 as expo stall

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

TDS on managerial commission - ground No. 6.\n11. Submission made by the ld. AR on various issues which are being\nmentioned in the subsequent paragraphs alongwith respective grounds of\nappeal, are tabulated in short as below for the sake of convenience (taken\nfrom submission of ld.AR):\nSI.\nNo.\n1.\nIssue\nDisallowance of interest of\nRs.89

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOLDENDUNES HEIGHTS LLP, JAIPUR

ITA 1352/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

section 142(1) of the Act dated 13.02.2021 was asked to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of loan transactions. The assessee submitted details and on perusal of the same ld. AO noticed that it has failed to justify the unsecured loan from the following parties. (i) Aventez Media Technology- The assessee has received loan