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 89clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,193Mumbai1,161Bangalore514Chennai439Kolkata235Indore165Hyderabad158Ahmedabad158Chandigarh155Jaipur128Karnataka124Raipur76Cochin75Pune55Cuttack43Rajkot36Lucknow35Surat33Nagpur33Visakhapatnam30Ranchi24Kerala18Guwahati18Agra18Amritsar14Jodhpur13Telangana10Allahabad9Dehradun8Patna5Jabalpur5Varanasi5Rajasthan3Uttarakhand3SC3Calcutta2Panaji2Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 403Section 80P(2)(d)3Section 2632Section 143(3)2Section 194A(3)(iv)2Section 80P(2)(a)2Section 80P2Deduction2Disallowance2

SHRI NITIN A SHIRGURKAR,BELGAVI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

ITA 77/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 194A(3)(iv)Section 263Section 40

89,556/- but but claimed that the amount suffering TDS is Rs. amount suffering TDS is Rs.13,77,717/- only in Audit Report An-VI. VI. 3.2 In the Audit Report, the Auditor has qualified the following 3.2 In the Audit Report, the Auditor has qualified the following 3.2 In the Audit Report, the Auditor has qualified the following payments

THE KERI URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KERI, GOA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), PANAJI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 140/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri S.J. KamatFor Respondent: Smt. Neelima Nadkarni, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

section, medical shops, lodging, plying and hiring of goods and carriage etc. It was in that background of the facts that the Hon'ble High Court held that the assessee could not claim deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. When we consider the impact of this decision, it turns out that the same is not germane to case under