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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai255Delhi228Chennai94Bangalore93Karnataka88Chandigarh65Raipur63Cochin63Hyderabad40Ahmedabad40Kolkata38Jaipur34Pune30Surat30Indore26Visakhapatnam17Lucknow16Rajkot6Cuttack5Varanasi4Agra4Guwahati3Jodhpur2Telangana2Nagpur2Amritsar2Dehradun1Panaji1Patna1Kerala1

Key Topics

Addition to Income2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. AAKAR HOTELS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 147Section 148

TDS of Rs. 3,30,000/- on account of purchase of property from M/s Aakar Hotels. Further the said deed was also duly registered on 29.03.2016 and stamp duty of Rs. 18,15,000/-along with registration fees of Rs 30,000/- was paid to the government on account of transfer of property. V. The property was taken on lease

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, BSNL RTTC BUILDING vs. THE WARDHA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur
21 Mar 2025
AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

249 ITR 216], has held that Assessment order must be made after the assessee has been given reasonable opportunity of setting out his case; assessment made without giving the assessee such an opportunity was liable to be set aside. Further, I find that in the case of Lal Construction Company. Secunderabad v/s the DCIT, Circle-10(1), Hyderabad