Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

463 results for “TDS”+ TDSclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,913 Mumbai5,522 Bangalore2,988 Chennai2,475 Kolkata1,577 Pune1,347 Ahmedabad791 Patna790 Hyderabad786 Jaipur463 Raipur423 Chandigarh388 Cochin371 Nagpur321 Indore255 Visakhapatnam223 Lucknow199 Karnataka195 Cuttack181 Rajkot171 Surat169 Jodhpur128 Ranchi93 Panaji88 Amritsar87 Dehradun87 Agra81 Guwahati58 Jabalpur48 Kerala41 SC29 Calcutta22 Allahabad20 Telangana18 Varanasi12 Rajasthan10 Himachal Pradesh8 Punjab & Haryana7 J&K5 Orissa5 Uttarakhand3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Andhra Pradesh1 KURIAN JOSEPH ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Gauhati1 Bombay1

Key Topics

TDS72 Addition to Income40 Section 201(1)30 Section 143(3)30 Section 14826 Section 35A25 Deduction25 Disallowance22 Section 13920 Condonation of Delay

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN URBAN DRINKING WATER SEWERAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPN LIMITED, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 597/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agrarwal ( C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 145Section 199Section 25

TDS certificates and the TDS certificates have not been doubted, credit has to be granted to the TDS

Showing 1–20 of 463 · Page 1 of 24

...

20

Section 142(1)18

KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN,PACHPAHAR vs. DCIT-ACIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 280/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 194J

TDS claimed by observing that if the assessee was a commission agent the TDS ought to have been

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 359/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

TDS), ACIT (TDS) and JCIT (TDS), Dehradun vs. The Joint Secretary Organizing Committee for Winter Games also

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 360/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

TDS), ACIT (TDS) and JCIT (TDS), Dehradun vs. The Joint Secretary Organizing Committee for Winter Games also

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 358/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

TDS), ACIT (TDS) and JCIT (TDS), Dehradun vs. The Joint Secretary Organizing Committee for Winter Games also

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

TDS and TDS has been deducted, there was no payment of rental made which required TDS for the reason

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 901/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a

Section 145(3)Section 40

TDS demand and Rs. 10,295/- on account of TDS penalty, without appreciating genuineness of claim and submission

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 900/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a

Section 145(3)Section 40

TDS demand and Rs. 10,295/- on account of TDS penalty, without appreciating genuineness of claim and submission

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

TDS compliance, to which the assessee stated thatsince the TDS details given in Audit Form 3CD were duly

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

ITA 694/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Adv. & Shri Mukesh SoniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 195Section 263Section 90

TDS quarterly report, the TDS deducted and deposited\nonly on Rs. 13,92,83,709/-. Hence TDS not deducted

MARVEL SUPPORT CONSULTANCY SERVICES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed per ground

ITA 293/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

TDS of Rs.56,42,822/- (APB 67-68). It includes TDS credit of Rs.8,52,736/- (APB 68-69) which

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

ITA 13/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

TDS”, which is paid in respect of late payment of TDS. Such TDS is not made from

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

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

ITA 471/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

TDS was to be deducted @ 20% but no TDS has been deducted, therefore, the TDS liability of Rs. 33,29,700/- was calculated

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI

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

ITA 472/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

TDS was to be deducted @ 20% but no TDS has been deducted, therefore, the TDS liability of Rs. 33,29,700/- was calculated

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, ALWAR

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

ITA 470/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

TDS was to be deducted @ 20% but no TDS has been deducted, therefore, the TDS liability of Rs. 33,29,700/- was calculated

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA ,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, ALWAR

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

ITA 466/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

TDS was to be deducted @ 20% but no TDS has been deducted, therefore, the TDS liability of Rs. 33,29,700/- was calculated

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR, TIGER PROJECT SARISKA (LOCAL AUTHORITY) ,SARISKA, ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

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

ITA 450/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

TDS was to be deducted @ 20% but no TDS has been deducted, therefore, the TDS liability of Rs. 33,29,700/- was calculated

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

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

ITA 473/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

TDS was to be deducted @ 20% but no TDS has been deducted, therefore, the TDS liability of Rs. 33,29,700/- was calculated

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

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

ITA 475/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

TDS was to be deducted @ 20% but no TDS has been deducted, therefore, the TDS liability of Rs. 33,29,700/- was calculated

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI

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

ITA 474/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

TDS was to be deducted @ 20% but no TDS has been deducted, therefore, the TDS liability of Rs. 33,29,700/- was calculated