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.

56 results for “TDS”+ Section 5(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,222Delhi4,192Bangalore2,346Chennai1,550Kolkata1,244Pune724Hyderabad626Ahmedabad539Jaipur386Karnataka334Chandigarh315Raipur291Cochin187Indore175Lucknow139Surat127Visakhapatnam104Rajkot99Nagpur93Cuttack77Dehradun76Amritsar59Jodhpur56Telangana46Patna46Jabalpur45Guwahati43Agra40Allahabad36Panaji27Ranchi26SC21Varanasi17Kerala16Calcutta11Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana4J&K4Orissa3Himachal Pradesh2Uttarakhand2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)107Section 143(3)57TDS36Section 206C33Section 15429Deduction28Addition to Income27Section 194I22Section 194C18Section 194

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)

B) read with New Noble Education Society. ii. Past exemptions under Sections 10/11/12-contradiction with current application under 12AB. alleging iii. Surplus generation- Asserting profit motive. iv. Hostel fee receipts-Treating them as commercial activityrequiring separate books., v. Transactions with persons u/s 13(3)- alleging personal benefit/diversion. vi. Linkage with Enforcement Directorate proceedings- against the sponsoring body imputing lack of genuineness

Showing 1–20 of 56 · Page 1 of 3

17
Section 133A15
Disallowance11

ABDUL AJEEJ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 174/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 194Section 194ISection 194LSection 201(1)

b) The sale price due to petitioners 1 to 10 does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs each. Therefore no deduction under section 1941A of the Income Tax Act need be made either." M/s Abdul Rashid & Ors vs. DCIT TDS Thus the ratio laid down by the honorable Kerala High Court is fully applicable in the appellant's case. Hence

ABDUL KADIR,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 175/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 194Section 194ISection 194LSection 201(1)

b) The sale price due to petitioners 1 to 10 does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs each. Therefore no deduction under section 1941A of the Income Tax Act need be made either." M/s Abdul Rashid & Ors vs. DCIT TDS Thus the ratio laid down by the honorable Kerala High Court is fully applicable in the appellant's case. Hence

ABDUL RASHID,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 172/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 194Section 194ISection 194LSection 201(1)

b) The sale price due to petitioners 1 to 10 does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs each. Therefore no deduction under section 1941A of the Income Tax Act need be made either." M/s Abdul Rashid & Ors vs. DCIT TDS Thus the ratio laid down by the honorable Kerala High Court is fully applicable in the appellant's case. Hence

ABDUL HAKIM,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 173/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 194Section 194ISection 194LSection 201(1)

b) The sale price due to petitioners 1 to 10 does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs each. Therefore no deduction under section 1941A of the Income Tax Act need be made either." M/s Abdul Rashid & Ors vs. DCIT TDS Thus the ratio laid down by the honorable Kerala High Court is fully applicable in the appellant's case. Hence

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

b) and clause (c) against any amount paid under section 200 or section 201 or section 234E and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest or fee, (e) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to him under

KAVITA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15
Section 194Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

b) "immovable property" means any land (other than agricultural land) or any building or part of a building; 27[(c) "stamp duty value" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (f) of the Explanation to clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of section 56.] It is also evident that the assessee has made the payment

ITO (TDS), BHILWARA vs. M/S.HADPAWAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. , CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 386/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad386/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) Vs M/S. Hadpawat Enterprises The Ito (Tds) Bhilwara (P) Ltd.40-A, Pratap Nagar Chittorgarh (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Jdhh 00781 E

Section 200Section 206Section 272Section 272ASection 272A(2)Section 272A(2)(k)

b) …. (c) …. (d) …. (e) …. (f) …. (g) …. (h) …. (i) …. (j)`.. (k) to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within the time specified in sub-section (4) of Section 200 or the proviso to Sub0section (3) of Section206© (l).. (m)… he shall pay, by way of penalty a sum (of one hundred rupee) for every day during

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

b) of sub-section (1) 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

JYOTI MALIWAL,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 75/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Sept 2023AY 2015-16
Section 10(20)Section 194Section 194ISection 196Section 201Section 201(1)

b) "immovable property" means any land (other than agricultural land) or any building or part of a building.]" 8.5 In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the Ld. AO justified in charging penalty and interest u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 79,500/- as per provisions of section

KIRAN JAIN,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, TDS,, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 76/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Sept 2023AY 2015-16
Section 10(20)Section 194Section 194ISection 196Section 201Section 201(1)

b) "immovable property" means any land (other than agricultural land) or any building or part of a building.]" 8.5 In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the Ld. AO justified in charging penalty and interest u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 79,500/- as per provisions of section

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 21/JODH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 250(6)

B (TDS),Jodhpur. Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. [PAN: AEMPB0363H] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Smt. Raksha Birla, CA. Respondent by Sh. Laxman Singh Gurjar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement 06.12.2023 ORDER Per:Bench: A batch of three (03) appeals of the same assessee were filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Jodhpur

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 20/JODH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 250(6)

B (TDS),Jodhpur. Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. [PAN: AEMPB0363H] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Smt. Raksha Birla, CA. Respondent by Sh. Laxman Singh Gurjar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement 06.12.2023 ORDER Per:Bench: A batch of three (03) appeals of the same assessee were filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Jodhpur

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 22/JODH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 250(6)

B (TDS),Jodhpur. Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. [PAN: AEMPB0363H] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Smt. Raksha Birla, CA. Respondent by Sh. Laxman Singh Gurjar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement 06.12.2023 ORDER Per:Bench: A batch of three (03) appeals of the same assessee were filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Jodhpur

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2\nMoreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas\ngiven ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2\nMoreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2\nMoreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

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