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)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai102Delhi88Bangalore41Ahmedabad35Kolkata25Jaipur16Chennai14Pune13Hyderabad13Indore9Lucknow8Chandigarh8Rajkot6Surat4Allahabad2Jodhpur2SC2Agra1Ranchi1Dehradun1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 12A28Section 271(1)(c)15Section 14815Section 80G14Section 1110Deduction10Penalty9Addition to Income8Section 143(3)7TDS

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)

ii) Jacinta & Dasara – Under the service contract barefoot college\ninternational will engage in providing service under an education program through developing a\nvideo to create awareness, information and counselling to local audience in rural communities\nand Digital Night School to support girls education (iii) Women Light the World (though FOBC)\neducation service fee received for correspondence course are outside

6
Section 2745
Section 139(4)5

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)

ii) The respondents are directed to consufer the applications submitted by the petitioners as to the recognition/approval in respect of clause (1) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act as within time and consider the same and pass orders thereon on merits." 7. Therefore, owing to extenuating circumstances beyond our control, such

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

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

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 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

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

ITA 621/JPR/2023[2017-18 onwards]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024
For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT &
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 40A(3)

80G(5) to the\nassessee-society. [Para 17]\n120-132\nBENEFITS TO TRUSTEES IS NOT GROUND FOR CANCELLATION\n13.\nTamil Nadu Cricket\nAssociation\nDIT(Exemptions)\n[2013]\ntaxmann.com\n(Madras)\nV.\n40\n250\nThus in contract to section 12AA(1)(b), where the grant of\nregistration requires satisfaction about the objects of the\ntrust as well as genuineness

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

II of Section 195(1) of the Act the assessee was under obligation to deduct the tax at source for making the payment of commission to non-resident. Therefore, the ld. CIT (A) has accepted the nature of payment as commission and not fee for technical service. The relevant finding of the ld. CIT (A) in para 4.3 as under

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

ii. Capital expenditure as per Fixed assets 21,09,490 schedule Total application 83,46,907 Percentage of application 87.87% From the above it can be noted that assessee has applied 87.87% of its receipt for charitable purpose and therefore after considering the exemption u/s 11, the total income of the assessee would

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

II, Jaipur. It may be noted that approval u/s 80G cannot be granted unless a trust or institution or society is registered u/s 12AA of the Act as mandated by sub-clause (i) of sub-section 5 of section 80G. It may also be noted that the AO in the assessment order passed

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

ITA 547/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

TDS and was\nduly accepted by the AO as well. Admittedly, there is no upward variation made\nby the AO in the declared income.\n11.2 The subsequent validly filed ROI substitutes the earlier one:\nIt is well settled that if ROI has been filed u/s 139 within the permissible time limit,\nit can be revised u/s 139(5) and once

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 274

TDS and was\nduly accepted by the AO as well. Admittedly, there is no upward variation made\nby the AO in the declared income.\n11.2 The subsequent validly filed ROI substitutes the earlier one:\nIt is well settled that if ROI has been filed u/s 139 within the permissible time limit,\nit can be revised u/s 139(5) and once

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

ITA 543/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13
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

TDS and was\nduly accepted by the AO as well. Admittedly, there is no upward variation made\nby the AO in the declared income.\n11.2 The subsequent validly filed ROI substitutes the earlier one:\nIt is well settled that if ROI has been filed u/s 139 within the permissible time limit,\nit can be revised u/s 139(5) and once

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 274

TDS and was\nduly accepted by the AO as well. Admittedly, there is no upward variation made\nby the AO in the declared income.\n11.2 The subsequent validly filed ROI substitutes the earlier one:\nIt is well settled that if ROI has been filed u/s 139 within the permissible time limit,\nit can be revised u/s 139(5) and once

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 274

TDS and was\nduly accepted by the AO as well. Admittedly, there is no upward variation made\nby the AO in the declared income.\n11.2 The subsequent validly filed ROI substitutes the earlier one:\nIt is well settled that if ROI has been filed u/s 139 within the permissible time limit,\nit can be revised u/s 139(5) and once

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