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.

6 results for “TDS”+ Section 234Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi887Mumbai783Bangalore418Kolkata75Ahmedabad71Chennai68Hyderabad64Jaipur41Karnataka29Pune27Indore18Agra16Chandigarh15Ranchi13Cochin10Lucknow9Surat9Rajkot7Nagpur6Visakhapatnam5Raipur5Allahabad4Jabalpur4Cuttack4Patna3Guwahati2Telangana2Dehradun2Jodhpur1SC1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 4010Section 234A8Section 687Section 1486Addition to Income6Section 143(1)5Section 143(3)5TDS4Section 10(37)3Section 143

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 399/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68Section 69A

234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 9. The order passed by CIT(A) is without providing reasonable opportunity of being head and is therefore illegal, invalid and bad in law. 10. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. Facts in brief:- In the case of assessee regular assessment

2
Disallowance2

AKSHAY GAJANAN SURYAWANSHI DESHMUKH,CHIKHLI vs. ITO WARD-2, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 385/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 115BSection 234ASection 250Section 37Section 68

TDS at Rs.56,445/- while determining tax payable at the hands of assessee. 18) The assessee denies liability to pay interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section

VIJAYKUMAR ROOPLALJI JAISWAL,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 183/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalevijaykumar Rooplalji Jaiswal, 46, Middle Ring Road, East Wardhaman Nagar, ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440008, Maharashtra. Pan–Abrpj7368Q V/S A.C.I T. Circle–4, ……………. Respondent Nagpur-440001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.K.P. Dewani, A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.K.P. Dewani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing

RAGHAV AGRITECH,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 182/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Agrawal
Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 1aSection 234ASection 40

section 143 is bad in law. Further the Ld. AddI/JCIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the issue. 5 That the Ld. AddI/JCIT (A) erred in holding that since the tax at source (TDS) on payment of Rs 2,06,50,000/- to the building contractor has not been deducted u/s 194C, 30% of the amount paid to the building

YASH TRAVELS AND TOURS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 481/NAG/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Yash Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward–2(2), Nagpur F–5, Shrdha House, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kingsway, Nagpur–4440001. Nagpur–440001. [Pan: Aaacy3931D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(37)Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 96

TDS on full compensation amount as the income is exempt, therefore addition confirmed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 6. On the facts and circumstances the learned CIT(A) NFAC ought to have accepted that the assessee has received compensation towards acquisition of agriculture land and the same is exempt as per provision of section 10(37) of the Income

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSESSIG OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

ITA 20/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.20/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bajaj Steel Industries The Assessing Officer, Limited, Vs National E-Assessment 539/540, Imambada Road, Centre, Delhi. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaacb 5340 H Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajesh V. Loya – Ca Revenue By Shri Kailash Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 22.12.2022 For A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 24.04.2021. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : Bajaj Steel Industries Limited [A]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

TDS credit is unjustified. 14. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the action of AO in charging interest u/s. 234A, 5 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited [A] 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is improper. 15. That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour