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.

42 results for “TDS”+ Section 17clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,527Delhi3,526Bangalore1,833Chennai1,288Kolkata812Hyderabad711Pune699Ahmedabad647Jaipur426Indore376Chandigarh355Cochin314Raipur266Karnataka264Visakhapatnam223Surat205Cuttack179Nagpur170Rajkot142Lucknow95Amritsar81Dehradun59Ranchi58Guwahati43Panaji42Jodhpur42Telangana41Patna40Allahabad39Agra38Jabalpur38SC18Kerala12Varanasi11Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan6Calcutta6Punjab & Haryana4Uttarakhand3Orissa1Gauhati1J&K1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 234E67Section 143(3)55Section 206C31Section 200A28TDS24Addition to Income20Section 194A18Section 15417Section 143(1)16Section 201(1)

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 110/JODH/2019[2017-18 (26 Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

15
Deduction13
Disallowance10

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 112/JODH/2019[2017-18 (26 Q - 4)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 111/JODH/2019[2017-18 (26Q - 3)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 106/JODH/2019[2016-17 (26Q-1)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 109/JODH/2019[2017-18 (26 Q- 1)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 107/JODH/2019[2016-17 (26 Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhawani Singh Bhati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)Section 201(2)Section 234E

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATION HEADQUARTER BSF,BIKANER vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE, JODHPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 302/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

AJAYAB SINGH MUKHTYAR SINGH,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 695/JODH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(1)Section 194Q

17, 1986, but only commission on that amount is included in the total income of the Appellant. The AO/CPC has alleged in intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') that TDS

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

17, 1986, but only commission on that amount is included in the total income of the Appellant. The AO/CPC has alleged in intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') that TDS

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

17, 1986, but only commission on that amount is included in the total income of the Appellant. The AO/CPC has alleged in intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') that TDS

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)

17, 1986, but only commission on that amount is included in the total income of the Appellant. The AO/CPC has alleged in intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') that TDS

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)

17, 1986, but only commission on that amount is included in the total income of the Appellant. The AO/CPC has alleged in intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') that TDS

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

17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing

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)

section 201. Therefore, we uphold the demand. ITA No. 84/Jodh/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18): 9. We have heard the parties. Facts in this appeal are more or less identical to ITA No. 83/Jodh/2023 except little variation in the sense that in this year, the assessee has made following payments : Amount paid TDS to be Interest Total Nature of default payment Name

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

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 85/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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)

section 201. Therefore, we uphold the demand. ITA No. 84/Jodh/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18): 9. We have heard the parties. Facts in this appeal are more or less identical to ITA No. 83/Jodh/2023 except little variation in the sense that in this year, the assessee has made following payments : Amount paid TDS to be Interest Total Nature of default payment Name

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

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 84/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

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)

section 201. Therefore, we uphold the demand. ITA No. 84/Jodh/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18): 9. We have heard the parties. Facts in this appeal are more or less identical to ITA No. 83/Jodh/2023 except little variation in the sense that in this year, the assessee has made following payments : Amount paid TDS to be Interest Total Nature of default payment Name

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)

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 the evidences. The information on the foundation of which Assessing Officer had initiated proceedings under section 147, was certain and constitutes sufficient and relevant

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

Section 143(3)Section 263

TDS is same i.e. 10% under both the 11 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT Sections. Thus there is no escapement of income from the clutches of revenue. It is therefore sincerely requested that the impugned order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may kindly be quashed and oblige.” 5. On the other hand

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

section 145 of the Act to reject the books of account to estimate trading result which is contrary to settled principles of law. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Gotan Lime Khanij Udyog reported in 256 ITR Page 243 held as under: - "That even if technically it is held that provisions

SUNITA AGARWAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

Section 115Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 263 of the Act on this issue. 17. Issue/Point No. 5: Ld. PCIT observed that the assessee had received a total loan of Rs. 15 Lacs from one Smt. Rekha instead of Rs. 5.00 lacs as shown by the assessee. It was further observed that the assessee had expanded an amount of Rs. 53,425/- on behalf of interest