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.

7 results for “TDS”+ Section 246Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi178Indore134Mumbai123Chennai114Pune87Raipur35Bangalore33Cochin26Dehradun26Jabalpur23Kolkata19Nagpur14Chandigarh13Surat11Panaji10Visakhapatnam9Hyderabad9Jaipur9Amritsar8Jodhpur7Lucknow7Karnataka4Ahmedabad4Cuttack3Allahabad2Agra1

Key Topics

Section 234E11Section 1549Section 271E9Section 200A8Section 143(1)6Section 271C6TDS6Section 143(3)5Section 2005Deduction

ITO, TDS-2, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMBHAT, HUF, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenuebearing ITA No

ITA 34/JODH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 246Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271CSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

TDS), Jodhpur and submissions of the appellant. There are two issues to be adjudicated upon; firstly, whether the penalty is time barred and secondly. whether the AO was right in imposing the penalty of Rs.6,000/-. To appreciate issue in better perspective, it is imperative to recapitulate the S.275 which is reads as under:- Bar of limitation for imposing penalties

4
Disallowance3
Penalty2

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

246A ………. (b) In a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of revision under section 263 or section 264, after the expiry of six month from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed. 9 Shri Manish Sharma, Kota. (c) In any other case, after the expiry of the financial

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

246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this

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

246A New Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh Junction - 335512 PAN No. AAFHB1577C Assessee by Shri Vedant Gupta, C.A. Revenue by Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. D.R.) Date of Hearing 19.05.2025. Date of Pronouncement 17.06.2025. Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hanumangarh. ORDER DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, Α.Μ.: These appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders even dated

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

246A New Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh Junction - 335512 PAN No. AAFHB1577C Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hanumangarh. Shri Vedant Gupta, C.A. Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. D.R.) 19.05.2025. 17.06.2025. ORDER DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: These appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders even dated 24.05.2024 of the Commissioner

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

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. 46,662/- in the computation of income. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused material on record. From the impugned order, it is seen that the learned JCIT (A) rejected the appeal qua the assessee by observing vide para5, as under: 5. Decision: I have carefully considered the appellate documents, submissions filed, and order