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.

127 results for “TDS”+ Section 2(22)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,011Delhi2,975Bangalore1,567Chennai1,095Kolkata698Pune539Hyderabad467Ahmedabad392Jaipur278Indore275Cochin236Karnataka221Raipur216Chandigarh205Patna172Visakhapatnam141Nagpur127Surat106Lucknow85Rajkot82Cuttack63Ranchi46Dehradun38Amritsar36Panaji32Guwahati32Agra30Jodhpur27Telangana27Allahabad15SC14Jabalpur13Varanasi12Kerala10Calcutta5Orissa2Uttarakhand2Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 234E187Section 200A180TDS87Section 194A66Section 25058Deduction54Section 201(1)43Condonation of Delay41Section 20140Section 143(3)

ITO WARD-1(1) NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. ASHWAMI SALES AND MARKETING PVT.LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 294/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(1)Section 194(7)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

2% is deducted on payment for a contract. However, in the case of a sub-contract, TDS is deducted at the rate of 1 %. Further, in the case of payment for an advertising contract, TDS is required to be deducted at the rate of 1 %. In order to reduce the scope for disputes regarding classification of contract as sub contract

Showing 1–20 of 127 · Page 1 of 7

35
Limitation/Time-bar34
Exemption28

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the A

ITA 391/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

TDS. We thus do not find reason to interfere with the first appellate order on the issue. The same is upheld. The issue is thus decided against the revenue. The above judicial pronouncement has also been followed by co- ordinate Bench of same (Pune) Tribunal in case of :- Jay Tuljabhavani Sah. Patpedhi Pragati V/s ITO (ITAT Pune) Relevant Para

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 390/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

TDS, details of Bank Accounts and details of various other expenses, etc. The appellant through his AR explained the case from time to time. From the documents submitted and 4 The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co–operative Society Ltd. A.Y. 2012–13 explanations provided by the appellant, the AO notices that the appellant had earned interest income from Fixed Deposits with

BANK OF INDIA ,PRASHEONI BRANCH vs. ACIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 111/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

section 200A, which is effective from 01.06.2015. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the following table containing the requisite particulars in respect of the TDS statements filed by the respective branches of the assessee wherein the late fee u/s 234E has been levied while processing the TDS statements by the ACIT TDS-CPC and which has been confirmed

BANK OF INDIA,SIHORA BRANCH vs. ACIT,CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 104/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

section 200A, which is effective from 01.06.2015. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the following table containing the requisite particulars in respect of the TDS statements filed by the respective branches of the assessee wherein the late fee u/s 234E has been levied while processing the TDS statements by the ACIT TDS-CPC and which has been confirmed

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 176/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24

section 10(3) of the Act. Ground no.5, raised by the Revenue is thus dismissed by upholding the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). 18. Ground no.6, raised by the Revenue relates to the addition of ` 68,02,624, made on account of unexplained unsecured loans. 19. The observations of the learned CIT(A) while deleting the addition

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

ITA 350/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

22 of the Paper Book. It was submitted that the total payments made for purchase of land as per payment schedule was ` 12,52,00,000. The stamp duty valuation of the property was arrived at ` 15,33,33,000, i.e., after adding the valuation of cost free construction of ` 2,81,33,000. Thus, the learned Counsel submitted that

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

ITA 349/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

22 of the Paper Book. It was submitted that the total payments made for purchase of land as per payment schedule was ` 12,52,00,000. The stamp duty valuation of the property was arrived at ` 15,33,33,000, i.e., after adding the valuation of cost free construction of ` 2,81,33,000. Thus, the learned Counsel submitted that

SUNILKUMAR RAJENDRA RAI,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 286/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y.Marathe, Sr.Dr
Section 200Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order. 3. The only issue involved in all these appeals is, whether the Assessing Officer can levy

DIGP GC CRPF,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 295/NAG/2022[2015-2016 Qtr-4]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur18 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.294 & 295/Nag/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Digp Group Centre Crpf, Vs. Dcit, Cpc (Tds), D/O The Office Of The Digp Ghaziabad. Group Centre, Hingna Road, Digdoh Hills, Midc Area, Nagpur- 440019. Pan : Aaagd0143E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue By : Smt. Rashmi Mathur Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 15.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.294/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

DIGP GROUP CENTRE CRPF,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CPC(TDS) , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 294/NAG/2022[2015-2016, Qtr-3]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur18 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.294 & 295/Nag/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Digp Group Centre Crpf, Vs. Dcit, Cpc (Tds), D/O The Office Of The Digp Ghaziabad. Group Centre, Hingna Road, Digdoh Hills, Midc Area, Nagpur- 440019. Pan : Aaagd0143E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue By : Smt. Rashmi Mathur Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 15.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.294/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 241/NAG/2019[2014-15 Quarter-4]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 243/NAG/2019[2015-16 Quarter -3]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2019[2015-16 Quarter-2]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 239/NAG/2019[2013-14 Quarter4]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 238/NAG/2019[2013-14 Quarter3 ]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 240/NAG/2019[2014-15 Quarter -3]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PANCHAYAT SAMITI MURTIZAPUR ,MURTIZAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD -1(2), AKOLA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 26/NAG/2018[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD 1(2) , AKOLA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 406/NAG/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PANCHAYAT SAMITI,MURTIZAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD -1(2), AKOLA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 25/NAG/2018[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (
Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel