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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Section 292Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore28Delhi21Mumbai14Chennai8Nagpur6Jabalpur6Jaipur5Jodhpur5Pune5Raipur5Surat3Ahmedabad2Kolkata1Karnataka1Chandigarh1

Key Topics

Section 15420Section 2505Section 1485Section 425Section 292B5Section 189(3)5Section 234A5Section 234C5Business Income5Addition to Income

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

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

292B of Act cannot be made. 3. That the ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that under the law of partnership a firm has no legal existence apart from partner and it is merely a compendious name to describe its partner. If respondent want to assess the income of non existing partnership firm, then the firm must be fully

5
Survey u/s 133A5
Rectification u/s 1545

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

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

292B of Act cannot be made. 3. That the ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that under the law of partnership a firm has no legal existence apart from partner and it is merely a compendious name to describe its partner. If respondent want to assess the income of non existing partnership firm, then the firm must be fully

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

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

292B of Act cannot be made. 3. That the ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that under the law of partnership a firm has no legal existence apart from partner and it is merely a compendious name to describe its partner. If respondent want to assess the income of non existing partnership firm, then the firm must be fully

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

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

292B of Act cannot be made. 3. That the ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that under the law of partnership a firm has no legal existence apart from partner and it is merely a compendious name to describe its partner. If respondent want to assess the income of non existing partnership firm, then the firm must be fully

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

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

292B of Act cannot be made. 3. That the ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that under the law of partnership a firm has no legal existence apart from partner and it is merely a compendious name to describe its partner. If respondent want to assess the income of non existing partnership firm, then the firm must be fully