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.

66 results for “TDS”+ Section 11(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,672Delhi4,618Bangalore2,377Chennai1,707Kolkata1,193Pune885Hyderabad604Ahmedabad563Jaipur407Indore370Raipur350Karnataka308Cochin304Chandigarh280Nagpur261Surat207Visakhapatnam179Rajkot144Lucknow125Cuttack91Amritsar76Jodhpur66Patna60Ranchi54Dehradun52Agra45Telangana44Panaji41Guwahati38Jabalpur22SC21Allahabad15Calcutta13Kerala13Himachal Pradesh8Varanasi7Rajasthan6J&K3Punjab & Haryana3Uttarakhand3Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)106Section 206C99Section 143(3)55TDS51Section 194C38Deduction29Section 143(1)24Section 15422Section 194A21Addition to Income

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs. M/S. VIDYA BHAWAN SOCIETY, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 325/JODH/2019[ 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradacit, Vs M/S. Vidya Bhawan Circle (Exemption), Society, Mohan Singh, Jodhpur Mehta Marg, Fatehpur, Udaipur (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 Date Of 24/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M.: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Udaipur Dated 27.06.2019. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

section 11(1), one should go to the stage of income before application thereof and take into account 25 per cent of such income. The same has to be taken on 'commercial' basis and it need not be the 'total income' as computed under the Income-tax Act. The sum which is spent and applied by the assessee for charitable

Showing 1–20 of 66 · Page 1 of 4

20
Section 194Q19
Disallowance18

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

3) and estimating GP is perverse to the facts or record. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 1,19,26,410/-. 17. In ground No. 7 to 14, the appellant has challenged the confirmation of addition of Rs 1,11,60,612/-in respect of alleged bogus sales. 18. It has been discussed as above that the assessee company

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

3) in computation of income. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the action of Ld AO for not allowing set off of brought forward capital loss of Rs. 13,01,585/- in the computation sheet. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances

MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/JODH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 269TSection 271DSection 271E

11 Shri Manish Sharma, Kota. of section 275 is not applicable in the present case, therefore, this clause is applicable. Conclusion: Period of limitation for imposing penalty shall be calculated in view of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 275 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the present case. iii. As per the clause (c) of sub-section

ANU SETIYA,SADULSHAHAR vs. ITO WARD - 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 572/JODH/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

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

Section 143(1)Section 194Q

11,08,290/- and paid total tax of Rs. 2,48,444/-. The Appellant is working as a commission agent (Kachha Arhatia) besides his own purchase/ sale of agricultural commodities. The turnover (sales) made on behalf of the arhatia is not included in the turnover of the Appellant (Kachha Arhatia) as per circular no. 452 dated March

BOHAR SINGH,SRI KARANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 696/JODH/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

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

Section 143(1)Section 194Q

11,08,290/- and paid total tax of Rs. 2,48,444/-. The Appellant is working as a commission agent (Kachha Arhatia) besides his own purchase/ sale of agricultural commodities. The turnover (sales) made on behalf of the arhatia is not included in the turnover of the Appellant (Kachha Arhatia) as per circular no. 452 dated March

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)

11 and 12. 6. Section 13(3) Transactions at Arm's Length Payments to trustee (rent) were per lease agreement, at market rate, with TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 113/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 80P

11 and 12 or as cooperative societies under Section 80P. Therefore, the payments made to them are subject to TDS under Section 194C. 5. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the said demand by stating that the VFPMCs are not contractors under Section 194C, as they

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH), UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 114/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the said demand by stating that the VFPMCs are not contractors under Section 194C, as they are formed under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and function as self-help groups for forest conservation and development. The payments made to VFPMCs are not contract payments but are reimbursements for work done under the joint forest management policy of the State Government.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 80P

11 and 12 or as cooperative societies under Section 80P. Therefore, the payments made to them are subject to TDS under Section 194C. 5. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the said demand by stating that the VFPMCs are not contractors under Section 194C, as they

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,BANSWARA vs. ITO, TDS,, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 116/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same is also not taxable even in the hands of the recipient and the appellant cannot be treated as assessee is default. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 5. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter add or forego

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 76/JODH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same is also not taxable even in the hands of the recipient and the appellant cannot be treated as assessee is default. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 5. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter add or forego

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORET,BANSWARA vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/JODH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same is also not taxable even in the hands of the recipient and the appellant cannot be treated as assessee is default. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 5. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter add or forego

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,DUNGARPUR vs. ITO (TDS),, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 103/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same is also not taxable even in the hands of the recipient and the appellant cannot be treated as assessee is default. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 5. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter add or forego

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (NORTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 85/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same is also not taxable even in the hands of the recipient and the appellant cannot be treated as assessee is default. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 5. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter add or forego

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 75/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same is also not taxable even in the hands of the recipient and the appellant cannot be treated as assessee is default. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 5. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter add or forego

THE DEUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 84/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same is also not taxable even in the hands of the recipient and the appellant cannot be treated as assessee is default. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 5. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter add or forego

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (NORTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 86/JODH/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 133ASection 194CSection 201(1)

3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same is also not taxable even in the hands of the recipient and the appellant cannot be treated as assessee is default. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 5. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter add or forego

MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,RAISINGHNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 40/JODH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(1)

3. Being aggrieved by the order under section 143(1) of the Act, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl./ JCIT (A) - 1, Chennai, who dismissed the appeal of the Appellant by observing as under: "4.2 In the case under consideration, as illustrated in the preceding paragraph, the trade debtors is not confined to the unrealised commission

MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,RAISINGHNAGAR vs. ITO WARD - 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/JODH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

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

Section 143(1)

3. Being aggrieved by the order under section 143(1) of the Act, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl./ JCIT (A) - 1, Chennai, who dismissed the appeal of the Appellant by observing as under: "4.2 In the case under consideration, as illustrated in the preceding paragraph, the trade debtors is not confined to the unrealised commission

MAHARAJA GANGA MAHAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, TD,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 83/JODH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Shafi Mohd. Chouhan, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194A(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

3) of the Act, any income credited or paid to any banking company, to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies, has been excluded from applicability of section 194A of the Act. The approval granted by the RBI to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. makes it clear that it has been covered under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. That being