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.

34 results for “TDS”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,866Mumbai1,587Chennai834Bangalore729Kolkata449Pune340Ahmedabad314Raipur268Hyderabad262Karnataka245Jaipur240Chandigarh182Patna173Cochin134Indore108Lucknow104Surat98Visakhapatnam93Cuttack72Rajkot61Amritsar56Nagpur46Agra42Jodhpur34Telangana33Allahabad31Panaji27Jabalpur23Guwahati20Dehradun19Varanasi13Calcutta13Kerala10SC6Rajasthan4Orissa4Ranchi4Punjab & Haryana1Uttarakhand1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)53Section 15431Addition to Income19TDS17Section 14813Section 206C12Natural Justice11Section 234E10Section 206C(6)10Section 147

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 123/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 205CSection 206CSection 234E

TDS statement within the time and therefore imposing fee for delayed filing without being heard clearly amounts to arbitrariness. It is also submitted that the levy of fee under Section 234E does not stand the test of Quid Pro Quo, it is discriminatory, unreasonable and therefore violative of the principles of natural justice

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 153A9
Deduction8

LAXMAN SINGH SOLANKI (FIRM),PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 795/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194ASection 194C

justice. The Ld. AO has erred in disallowing interest expense of Rs.4,46,546/- for non- deduction of TDS. The interest payment was made to the banking company therefore no TDS is liable to be deducted. Therefore, disallowance of interest paid of Rs.4,46,546/- is bad in law and against the principles of natural

LAKHPAT TRADING AND INDUSTRYS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blelakhpat Trading & Acit, Circle-3 Industryspvt. Ltd. Jodhpur G-72/73 79/80, 1St Phase, Boranada, Jodhpur - 342001 Pan No. Aaccl 5668 C Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Smt. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/ Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein The Rejection Of Its Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3), Estimation Of Income & Reducing Genuine Sales.

Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 68Section 69C

justice because as admittedly the third party information as provided by other officer had been blindly accepted as genuine by ld AO without any examination by way of carrying out any investigation and verifications of facts and rebuttal of the alleged information to the assessee and thus, the documentary evidences and explanation as provided by assessee in support of genuineness

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 63/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2\nMoreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas\ngiven ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 64/JODH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2\nMoreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 66/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2\nMoreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 67/JODH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 65/JODH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

PREETI SINGHVI L/H SHRI AJAY SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 152/JODH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (W/S)For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

nature of professional and technical fee on which TDS should have been deducted as per section 194J, but the assessee has failed to deduct TDS. Hence, this expense is not allowable as per provision u/s 40(a)(ia). 6.4.5 I have examined the issue so raised. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings only after properly after properly appreciating and analyzing

DIDWANA VIKASH PARISHAD SAMITI, ,DIDWANA, NAGAUR. vs. AO,NFAC, JODHPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 172/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

TDS deduction that certain orders had been made by Id. CIT(A), for the year under consideration where no further action had been filed in the matter. The time limit for submission of appeal from the date of appeal order had already expired, as the assesses CA was not aware about the order, being preoccupied in marriage of his daughter

HEMENDRA GANGAWAT ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-TDS, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 145/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT - DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

TDS Prop:M/sMetroTrading Aayakar Bhawan, Room Company, No. 01A, Ground Floor, 52, Krishi upaj Mandi, Near Sub-City Centre, Udaipur -313001 Reti Stand, Savina, Rajasthan. Udaipur – 313001 Rajasthan. PAN/GIR No. : ABYPG8819Q Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT - DR Date of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 08.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR

HEMENDRA GANGAWAT ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-TDS, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 144/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT - DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

TDS Prop:M/sMetroTrading Aayakar Bhawan, Room Company, No. 01A, Ground Floor, 52, Krishi upaj Mandi, Near Sub-City Centre, Udaipur -313001 Reti Stand, Savina, Rajasthan. Udaipur – 313001 Rajasthan. PAN/GIR No. : ABYPG8819Q Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT - DR Date of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 08.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR

BHIKHAM CHAND MOHTA HUF,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO WARD - 1, HANUMANGARH, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner discussed as above

ITA 506/JODH/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 143(1)Section 194QSection 44A

TDS mismatch if any, to the appellant assesses. 11. Considering the provisions of law mandated u/s 199 and rule 37BA(1), and the CBDT Circular 452 of 1986 dated 17.03.1986, we find no error in the finding of the Ld. JCIT (A). In view of natural justice

BHIKHAM CHAND MOHTA HUF,HANUMANGARH JUNCTION vs. ITO WARD - 1, HANUMANGARH, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner discussed as above

ITA 505/JODH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 143(1)Section 194QSection 44A

TDS mismatch if any, to the appellant assesses. 11. Considering the provisions of law mandated u/s 199 and rule 37BA(1), and the CBDT Circular 452 of 1986 dated 17.03.1986, we find no error in the finding of the Ld. JCIT (A). In view of natural justice

KRISHAN LAL OM PRAKASH,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assesse is allowed in the manner discussed as above

ITA 686/JODH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Blekrishan Lal Om Prakash Shop No. 48, Nai Dhan Mandi, Padampur - 335041. Pan No. Aabfk1565H Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Section 199

TDS mismatch if any, to the appellant assesses. Following Coordinate Bench (Supra) and considering the provisions of law mandated u/s 199 and rule 37BA(1), and the CBDT Circular 452 of 1986 dated 17.03.1986, we find no error in the finding of the Ld. JCIT (A). In view of natural justice

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 779/JODH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 11Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 801A

TDS credit of Rs. 46664/- claimed by the assessee and also allowable as per law. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in recording the findings which are contrary to material record and also against the principle of natural justice

MADHAV UNIVERSITY,PINDWARA, SIROHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 789/JODH/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α No.789 &790/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year:2024-25) Madhav University Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Exemption, Jaipur Pindwara, Madhav Hills, Nh 27, Vpo Bharja, Pindwara, Sirohi Rajasthan-307023 Pan: Aasam7855L Shri Amit Kothari Shri M.K. Jain, Cit(Dr.) Present For Assessee Present For Revenue Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Bench: The Instant Appeals Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (For Brevity, 'Ld.Cit(E)'] Order Passed Under Section 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') & Order Passed Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act, Date Of Orders 30/09/2024. 2. Act Both The Appeals Related To Registration Under Section 12Ab& 80G Of The

Section 11Section 12ASection 3(2)Section 80Section 80G(5)

justice and inadequate opportunity of hearing. c. The appellant being separately granted status of University under the Act of State Government was a charitable institution and registration denied was bad in law and bad on facts, d. The Id. CIT(E) has failed to appreciate that the appellant was granted status of University by the Act of the State Government

CHHITAR MAL JAIN ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 113/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 70

natural justice and liable to quash. 2 The Ld CIT(A), NFAC further erred in upholding the disallowance of set off of Short Term Capital Loss by Short and Long Term Capital Gains as provided in section 70 of the Act. 3 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify and/or delete all or any of the grounds

KAVITA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15
Section 194Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

natural justice. 6. Ground 6. The appellant requests to quash the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) in respect of demand raised as stated at para 1 to 5 above and refund Rs. 90.311 with interest deposited on dated 06.02.2021. 7. Ground 7. The appellant hereby craves leave for addition, alteration. modification or deletion in the above grounds

JAI PRAKASH SUWALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 152/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15
Section 206C(1)Section 206C(6)Section 271CSection 273B

justice. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench Noted that the assessee for condonation of delay of 02 days has merit and we concur with the submission of the assessee. Thus the delay of 02 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision