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.

14 results for “TDS”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,113Delhi1,030Kolkata350Chennai316Bangalore313Hyderabad193Ahmedabad176Jaipur167Chandigarh129Pune90Raipur84Indore83Cochin80Surat59Visakhapatnam47Lucknow47Rajkot46Karnataka34Nagpur30Amritsar28Jodhpur24Cuttack23Guwahati17Patna14Allahabad12Jabalpur10Agra7Dehradun7Ranchi7SC6Telangana6Panaji5Kerala4Varanasi3Calcutta2J&K2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 14713Addition to Income11Section 142(1)10Section 25010Section 1488Section 2638Cash Deposit6TDS6Section 143(2)5Section 143(3)

MASUDAN TANTI,BHAGALPUR vs. CIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 29/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bedi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Lalita Kumari, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44

cash deposit and withdrawal and while the Ld. AO has not taken into account the withdrawals, the entire deposits have been added to the income of the assessee. 7. As regards the applicability of section 44AD, the same applies to the eligible assessee which is defined as under and the relevant provisions are reproduced as under: “44AD. Special provision

5
Section 69A5
Demonetization5

JAINAM ORNAMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,GAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GAYA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Jainam Ornament Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Chowk, Gaya, Gaya, Gaya, Bihar Vs. Bihar-823001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcj2187M Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 145(3)Section 68

deposit during the demonetisation period, but the appellant failed to submit documentary evidences like sale vouchers, details of stock purchase, closing stock month wise and various other details. On perusal of the details of cash sales made during the demonetisation period, it is clear that the assessee has miss-utilised the provisions of the scheme, the appellant was supposed

MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)

TDS showing payments to contractors, cash deposits in current account and TDS showing salary to employees. Since these incomes remained

MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 181/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)

TDS showing payments to contractors, cash deposits in current account and TDS showing salary to employees. Since these incomes remained

PAVAN KUMAR BHAGAT,SAHARSA vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARA

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

ITA 281/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37Section 69A

cash deposits have been consistently made in the bank in whole year. 13. For that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Ld. assessing officer has erred in not disclosing to the appellant, as to how the said sum relates to demonetized notes deposited during demonetization period. 14. For that the Ld. Commissioner of Income

SUDHIR KUMAR,PATNA vs. I.T.O., PATNA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 90/PAT/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sudhir Kumar, Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Vs. Patna. Patna. (Pan: Amlpk4871E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri K. M. Mishra, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Dhanbad, Camp Office At Patna Appeal No. 71/Cit(A)-Ii/13-14 Dated 25.02.2014 For A.Y. 2010-11 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-6(1), Patna, Dated 26.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 18.10.2010 Reporting Total Income Of Rs.3,01,260/-. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ld. Ao Sought Details On Various Aspects Of The Income Reported By The Assessee & Completed The Assessment By Making The Additions As Under: “Total Income As Per Return Rs. 3,01,260/- Add: As Discussed In Para D Rs. 3,42,708/- Add: As Discussed In Para E Rs. 14,03,744/- Add: As Discussed In Para F Rs. 58,92,354/- Total Income Rs. 89,40,066/-“

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 44A

TDS deducted against; the receipt were taken as total income therefore a mistake has been committed. The computation should be made as per the provision of 44AD. As per 44AD the total tax should have been computed as under: Contract Receipt: Rs. 16,60,755/- 4 Sudhir Kumar A.Y. 2010-11 Professional Receipt: Rs. 53,000/- Total

MD IFTAKHAR ALAM,ARARIA vs. ITO, PURNEA

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

ITA 389/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 250Section 69A

TDS is being deducted u/s 194H of the Income Tax Act 1961 further an accumulated commission of Rs.76,569 only has been received by assessee during the financial year 2016-17 relevant to it's AY 2017-18. 7. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the deposits made during the period of demonetization

PUNAM HISARIA,SITAMARHI vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-03, DARBH, DARBH

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

ITA 80/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.80/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Punam Hisaria ………. Appellant (Pan: Abupa3945R)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 250Section 40

TDS u/s. 194C. ii) Addition of Rs.45,000/- for unexplained cash deposit during demonetization period in Specified Bank Notes (SBN) on 10.11.2016. 5(a). As regards

LORD VISHNU CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 23/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 23/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lord Vishnu Constructions Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Private Limited Vs Patna 101, Lotus Apartment New Patliputra Colony Patna - 800013 [Pan: Aabcc5141M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna -1 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 18/10/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Through Various Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Assailed The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Cit Framed U/S 263 Of The Act. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In Construction Business. The Regular Return Of Income Furnished Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass On Account Of Two Reasons, Namely, “Abnormal Increase In Cash Deposit During

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT D/R
Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 69A

cash deposit during 2 I.T.A. No. 23/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lord Vishnu Constructions Private Limited demonetization period as compared to pre-demonetisation period” and “High ratio of refund to TDS

NILU KUMARI,SARAN vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TX DPTT., DELHI

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

ITA 429/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 115BSection 147Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

TDS has been deducted and the same is reflected in the form 26AS. The appellant is only the CSP agent duly authorized. 5. For that the nature of deposit and withdrawals are all banking transactions as the Assessee has been working as an agent and for furtherance of banking activities of its parent bank State Bank of India to provide

BBCPL-SKPL (JV),JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

deposits of the assessee company, which was not related to the business activity and hence assessable under the head ‘income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer determined business profit @8% out of contractual receipts of Rs. 192619348/-, amounting to Rs.15409548/- which is only marginally higher than the business profits (including Rs.1 crore of undisclosed income) declared by the assessee. Books

VAISHNAVI TELECOM,DARBHANGA vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), DARBHANGA, DARBHANGA

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

ITA 479/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg

Section 144Section 250

cash credits in the bank account of the assessee. 3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite notice. However, after considering the grounds of appeal as well as the impugned assessment order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and after hearing the Ld. DR, I proceed to decide the appeal on merits

BALKRISHNA BHALOTIA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

deposit of the assessee company which was not related to the business activity and hence assessable under the head ‘income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer determined business profit @8% out of contractual receipts of Rs.1521275394/-, amounting to Rs.121702032/- which is only marginally higher than the net profit declared by the assessee. Books of accounts of the assessee

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 10/PAT/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 40A(3)

deposited for ‘hire charges’, vide letter dated 23-09-2011. The extract of the letter is being reproduced below: “…..please explain whether tax has been deducted on it. If yes, furnish your Form 26Q and challan showing the payment of tax deducted. If not, please explain, why it should not be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). ” 14. In response