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.

17 results for “TDS”+ Section 249(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai321Delhi264Chennai131Bangalore108Karnataka89Cochin73Raipur69Chandigarh59Ahmedabad54Kolkata52Jaipur47Surat46Hyderabad30Pune30Indore23Visakhapatnam17Lucknow17Amritsar9Cuttack7Rajkot6Agra4Varanasi4Guwahati3Nagpur3Jodhpur3Telangana2Panaji2Kerala1Patna1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 206C54TDS14Natural Justice10Addition to Income8Limitation/Time-bar7Section 270A6Section 10(37)6Section 1486Section 1475Section 143(3)

JAMUNA DEVI NARESH CHANDRA MAHAVIDYALAYA,JALAUN vs. ITO-TDS, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 464/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, DR
Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

section 249(3) of the Act for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable and did not pronounce decision on the matter on its merits. 4. Aggrieved with this dismissal of its appeal, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. On the appointed date of hearing, when the case

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

4
Section 1443
Section 234E2

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 307/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R
Section 206C

TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 305/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R
Section 206C

TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 303/LKW/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R
Section 206C

TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R
Section 206C

TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R
Section 206C

TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/LKW/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigarm, D.R
Section 206C

TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 251/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

TDS amount is included then it should reach to the amount assessed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the Assessing Officer -has not added the pension amount as mentioned by appellant as the appellant never appeared before the Assessing Officer. The. Assessing Officer is directed to take remedial action while giving appeal effect. ITA. Nos. 249 & 251/LKW/2024 Page

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 249/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

TDS amount is included then it should reach to the amount assessed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the Assessing Officer -has not added the pension amount as mentioned by appellant as the appellant never appeared before the Assessing Officer. The. Assessing Officer is directed to take remedial action while giving appeal effect. ITA. Nos. 249 & 251/LKW/2024 Page

AMITA SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ITO RANGE-6(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 441/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 144ASection 147Section 249(3)

4. That the Authorities below erred in not considering that the entire Sale Consideration cannot be treated as Long Term Capital Gain and the cost of Acquisition and cost of Improvement ought to have been allowed from the Sale Consideration. 5. That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not allowing the credit of TDS of Rs.1

S.B.I H.R SECTION (ADMIN OFFICE),KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 249

TDS), HR Section, Admin Office, Kanpur. Main Branch, Kanpur. PAN:KNPSO2318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Pradeep Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing 07/04/2022 Date of pronouncement 27/04/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by two different assessees against separate orders of learned CIT(A) dated 09/11/2016. I.T.A. No.75 & 75/Lkw/2017

S.B.I ACCOUNTS & ADMIN OFFICE,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 74/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 249

TDS), HR Section, Admin Office, Kanpur. Main Branch, Kanpur. PAN:KNPSO2318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Pradeep Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing 07/04/2022 Date of pronouncement 27/04/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by two different assessees against separate orders of learned CIT(A) dated 09/11/2016. I.T.A. No.75 & 75/Lkw/2017

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 744/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 270A(6)Section 40

4 of 7 With regard to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the assessee submitted that it had 161 depots, all depots have maintained separate books of accounts, compliance with TDS had been made through separate TAN numbers and a few details of TDS had been supplied because it was not possible for the society to upload

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

ITA 88/LKW/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

TDS deducted as well as the interest there upon is highly excessive, contrary to facts, laws and principles of natural justice and fair play and thus may kindly be ordered to be quashed. 4. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee the assessee company underwent CIRP Proceeding and the Hon'ble NCLT

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

ITA 91/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

TDS deducted as well as the interest there upon is highly excessive, contrary to facts, laws and principles of natural justice and fair play and thus may kindly be ordered to be quashed. 4. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee the assessee company underwent CIRP Proceeding and the Hon'ble NCLT

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

ITA 90/LKW/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

TDS deducted as well as the interest there upon is highly excessive, contrary to facts, laws and principles of natural justice and fair play and thus may kindly be ordered to be quashed. 4. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee the assessee company underwent CIRP Proceeding and the Hon'ble NCLT

THAKUR ROSHAN SINGH,BAREILLY vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 530/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Thakur Roshan Singh, Smirti Sansthan, Vs. Income Tax Officer Vill Chathiya Faizu, Shahpur, Baniyan (Exemption), Ward, Bareilly Faridpur, Bareilly Pan: Aabat8692F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 4.07.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 16.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Made By Assessing Officer Rs. 60,20,000/- As Building Expenditure For Charitable Purposes, Arbitrarily Rejecting The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee. 2. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law That Such College Is Being Constructed & Run In The Remote Village Where In Due To Various Exigencies & Not Availability Of The Banking Facilities, Payments Are Made In Cash. 3. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law That The Payments Of Construction Had Made Not Being Rejected By The Ld. Ao. However, Due To Ongoing Work It Is A General Practice To Obtain Bills/Settlement Receipts Only On Finalization Of The Work, The Ld. Ao Has Arbitrarily Rejected The Same.

For Appellant: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16.04.2021. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in fact and in law in confirming the disallowance made by Assessing Officer Rs. 60,20,000/- as building expenditure