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.

41 results for “TDS”+ Section 2(13)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,251Mumbai4,151Bangalore2,132Chennai1,455Kolkata1,062Pune891Ahmedabad794Hyderabad743Indore621Jaipur494Chandigarh419Raipur414Cochin354Nagpur288Karnataka287Surat255Visakhapatnam252Cuttack201Rajkot164Lucknow120Amritsar106Jabalpur99Ranchi89Dehradun76Agra60Patna59Guwahati47Allahabad47Panaji45Jodhpur41Telangana40SC19Kerala14Varanasi13Calcutta10Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Uttarakhand3Orissa3Punjab & Haryana2J&K2Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)58Section 206C33Addition to Income21TDS20Section 194C18Section 194A18Section 143(1)16Section 26314Section 201(1)13Section 11

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)

13 | P a g e income, while the net income along with donations other than corpus donation, will form the eligible base out of which the Assessee is expected to apply 85%. This has also been explained in CBDT circular no. 5P dated 19.06.1998. Therefore, there is no question of making separate disallowance for loss on sale of fixed assets

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

13
Deduction13
Disallowance10

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)

section 2(15) of the Act. On the issue of surplus generation, it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Queen's Educational Society(supra) and American Hotel & Lodging Association Educational Institute(supra) that mere surplus, if ploughed back into educational activities, does not disqualify an educational institution from exemption. The assessee has demonstrated that during

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

section 199 of the I. T. Act and rule 37BA of the I. T. Rules. Thus, the AO has to verify the total receipts shown in 26AS and ITR and give credit of TDS to the appellant if the corresponding income has been offered either by the assessee, the Kachha Adatiya or its principle by for taxation in his income

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

section 199 of the I. T. Act and rule 37BA of the I. T. Rules. Thus, the AO has to verify the total receipts shown in 26AS and ITR and give credit of TDS to the appellant if the corresponding income has been offered either by the assessee, the Kachha Adatiya or its principle by for taxation in his income

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

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

2 as trust as per provisions of section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since these EDCs/VFPMCs are not registered as Co-operative Society, the provisions of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, are also not applicable on them. Hence by virtue of their creation they are not falling in any category whose income is subject

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

2 as trust as per provisions of section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since these EDCs/VFPMCs are not registered as Co-operative Society, the provisions of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, are also not applicable on them. Hence by virtue of their creation they are not falling in any category whose income is subject

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

13. Issue/Point No. 3: the ld. PCIT noticed that an advance of Rs 25 Lac was given in cash to Sh. Naveen Mahipal in two installments and the source of the credit was not examined by the A.O., thus, the PCIT directed the A.O. to examine and verify the source of credit by invoking provisions of Section

VAMITA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, , BALOTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

2) or 142(1) of the Act were ever served upon the assessee, therefore, non-compliance on account of non- receipt of notice by the assessee could not be taken as intentional. Even otherwise, as per record, the only source of income of the assessee is from salary from Government of Rajasthan on which TDS has all ready been deducted

ACIT (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs. M/S.MAHESH SIKSHAN SANSTHAN, JODHPUR

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 375/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.375/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit-Circle (Exemption) M/S. Mahesh Sikshan Sansthan बनाम/ Room No.64, Aaykar Bhawan Umaid Hospital Road Paota ‘C’ Road, Jodhpur Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. Vs. Rajasthan-342 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatm-6333-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Yadav - Ld. CIT- DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(e)Section 143(3)

section 13(3)(e) of the Act. 4) On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in allowing income tax demand and interest thereon without appreciating the fact that the assessee society has paid tax even if it is claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act that shows that it has been

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. SMT. ALPANA GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 45/JODH/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Alpana Gupta, 4-A-15, Central Circle, Jawahar Nagar, Bikaner. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aiepg 8893 R

Section 40

2(28A) and the assessee is not payer of the discounting charges, hence, section 194A is not applicable. Similarly, the Coordinate Bench of the Ahmadabad Tribunal in the case of Omkara Impex and Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2018) 53 CCH 0201 (Ahd.) (Trib.) has held that discounting charges are outside the 11 ITA 45/Jodh/2019 ACIT Vs Smt. Alpana Gupta

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)

section 199 of the I. T. Act and rule 37BA of the I. T. Rules. Thus, the AO has to verify the total receipts shown in 26AS and ITR and give credit of TDS to the appellant if the corresponding income has been offered either by the assessee, the Kachha Adatiya or its principle by for taxation in his income

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)

section 199 of the I. T. Act and rule 37BA of the I. T. Rules. Thus, the AO has to verify the total receipts shown in 26AS and ITR and give credit of TDS to the appellant if the corresponding income has been offered either by the assessee, the Kachha Adatiya or its principle by for taxation in his income

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

13 Shri Manish Sharma, Kota. be taken as relevant date as far as section 271(1)(c) was concerned and not date on which SCN was issued – Held, yes – Whether, since Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings in December, 2008 and six months from end of month in which action of imposition of penalty was initiated expired on 30.06.2009, penalty order

MARBLE KINGDOM INDIA PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 67/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Marble Kingdom India Private Income Tax Officer, 365, Lodha Complex, Shashtri Vs Ward-Tds, Circle, Udaipur Udaipur Pan: Jdhm06807D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2013-14 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 31.12.2019 Passed By Income Tax Officer (Tds), Udaipur. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Under Section 154 Of The Act Against The Order Under Section 200A. Assessee Requested The Ito To Rectify The Levy Of Fee Charged Under Section 234E Of The Act. The Ld. Ito Rejected The Application On The Ground That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record As It Is A Debatable Issue. The Relevant Paragraph Of The Order Is Reproduced Here As Under:- Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “3. On-Going Through The Record It Is Noticed That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent On Record & Issue Is Debatable & Also Not Covered U/S 154 Of The Act. Thus The Contention Of The Deductor/Assessee Is Not Tenable Because The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Has Dismissed The Appeals In The Case Of M/S Dundlod Shikdhan Sansthan & Anr. V/S Union Of India & Ors. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2014 Dated 28.07.2015 On This Issue. Hence Considering The Facts Of The Case & Decision Of Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 154 Is Rejected Accordingly.”

Section 154Section 200ASection 23Section 234ESection 250

TDS), Udaipur. 4. In the written submission, assessee has relied on various case laws to put forth the point that late fee under section 234E cannot be levied for the period prior to 1.6.2015. 2 Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. 5. It is observed that the assessee has filed an appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against

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)

13,104/- to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. in the year under consideration. Alleging non-deduction of tax at source under section 194A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has raised demand under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. However, materials placed on record reveal that AU Financiers (India) Ltd. has been granted the status of a small

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)

13,104/- to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. in the year under consideration. Alleging non-deduction of tax at source under section 194A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has raised demand under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. However, materials placed on record reveal that AU Financiers (India) Ltd. has been granted the status of a small

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)

13,104/- to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. in the year under consideration. Alleging non-deduction of tax at source under section 194A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has raised demand under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. However, materials placed on record reveal that AU Financiers (India) Ltd. has been granted the status of a small

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 250

Section 50C(2). The Ld. DVO has taken (+)50% as factor of adjustment on account of Location/Situation addition due to property situated on 100 mtr wide Ring Road With 44’0” wide front, he has not even considered the concept of commercial potential and ascertained the FMV based on the land used reported by him. 12 ITA 111 & 112/Jodh/2020 Subhash

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 111/JODH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 250

Section 50C(2). The Ld. DVO has taken (+)50% as factor of adjustment on account of Location/Situation addition due to property situated on 100 mtr wide Ring Road With 44’0” wide front, he has not even considered the concept of commercial potential and ascertained the FMV based on the land used reported by him. 12 ITA 111 & 112/Jodh/2020 Subhash