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.

30 results for “TDS”+ Section 20(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,593Delhi3,470Bangalore1,813Chennai1,250Kolkata884Pune562Hyderabad495Ahmedabad465Jaipur334Indore266Chandigarh260Raipur253Karnataka240Cochin239Surat155Nagpur152Visakhapatnam136Rajkot111Lucknow95Cuttack80Amritsar62Dehradun50Jodhpur46Jabalpur45Ranchi42Telangana35Guwahati34Allahabad31Panaji31Patna30Agra21SC17Varanasi13Calcutta11Kerala10Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan5Orissa2Uttarakhand2Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 26372Section 153A56Section 143(3)29Section 12716Section 25013Addition to Income13Section 143(2)11Section 142(1)11TDS11Limitation/Time-bar

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 328/PAT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

20. For that the impugned order is misconceived and arbitrary in nature. 21. For that the appellant prays to add, amend, modify, and any ground, if necessarily. 22. For that other grounds, if any, will be urged at the time of hearing.” 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the bench that along with the original grounds of appeal

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

11
Section 1479
Revision u/s 2638
ITA 326/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

20. For that the impugned order is misconceived and arbitrary in nature. 21. For that the appellant prays to add, amend, modify, and any ground, if necessarily. 22. For that other grounds, if any, will be urged at the time of hearing.” 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the bench that along with the original grounds of appeal

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 327/PAT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

20. For that the impugned order is misconceived and arbitrary in nature. 21. For that the appellant prays to add, amend, modify, and any ground, if necessarily. 22. For that other grounds, if any, will be urged at the time of hearing.” 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the bench that along with the original grounds of appeal

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 329/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

20. For that the impugned order is misconceived and arbitrary in nature. 21. For that the appellant prays to add, amend, modify, and any ground, if necessarily. 22. For that other grounds, if any, will be urged at the time of hearing.” 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the bench that along with the original grounds of appeal

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 322/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

20. For that the impugned order is misconceived and arbitrary in nature. 21. For that the appellant prays to add, amend, modify, and any ground, if necessarily. 22. For that other grounds, if any, will be urged at the time of hearing.” 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the bench that along with the original grounds of appeal

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 323/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

20. For that the impugned order is misconceived and arbitrary in nature. 21. For that the appellant prays to add, amend, modify, and any ground, if necessarily. 22. For that other grounds, if any, will be urged at the time of hearing.” 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the bench that along with the original grounds of appeal

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 325/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

20. For that the impugned order is misconceived and arbitrary in nature. 21. For that the appellant prays to add, amend, modify, and any ground, if necessarily. 22. For that other grounds, if any, will be urged at the time of hearing.” 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the bench that along with the original grounds of appeal

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

3) and under Section 147. In both the years, the profit on the receipts has been accepted at 6% and 7%. This year, ld. Assessing Officer has estimated the profit at 8% of the gross receipts. Therefore, directly there is no revenue loss. Apart from the above, the ld. Assessing Officer was fully aware that source of receipts and their

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

TDS. Its purchases are subject to GST and it has been filing GST return regularly. It has got its accounts audited for GST return and it has availed the GST credit so basic books of account were maintained by it, which was duly audited. The emphasis of the ld. 19 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 BBCPL- RCPL (JV) Assessing Officer

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

3) and under Section 147. In both the years, the profit on the receipts has been accepted at 6% and 7%. This year, ld. Assessing Officer has estimated the profit at 8% of the gross receipts. Therefore, directly there is no revenue loss. Apart from the above, the ld. Assessing Officer was fully aware that source of receipts and their

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)

section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of the notices at the end of the assessee. Ultimately the ld. Assessing Officer gone through the books of account submitted before her and made these two additions by recording the following finding:- “Addition u/s 40A(3) for payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- through bearer cheques:- On perusal of Books

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

3 of 6 I.T.A. No. 80/Pat/2023 A Y: 2017-18, Punam Hisaria the lower authorities and since the payments were made to the truck owners having goods carriage not exceeding ten in number and have furnished the declaration along with the PAN, no TDS was required to deducted as per section 194C(6) of the Act. However

HARIHAR PRASAD,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4 (4), PATNA

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

ITA 268/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54BSection 54FSection 96

20-November-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 08.08.2023. 2. The assessee

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

20,000/- each day for a total amount of Rs.27,28,439/- and the same is apparently in contravention to the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. Based on this issue, the ld. Pr. CIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act and asked the assessee to furnish the reply. 2.1. The assessee on the one hand, challenged

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

3. The assessing officer has erred in computing undisclosed income as above. It has been stated in the assessment order that the assessee has not submitted profit and loss account and balance sheet during the course of assessment nor books of account was produce. The assessee however has stated that the income has been computed under section 44AD

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,PATNA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises,………………………..........Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Nepali Kothi, Opposite Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [Pan:Aarfs8853J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna,…………………………………..……………..Respondent, Bihar-800001 Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 5Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 8Th, 2024 O R D E R

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

section 142 of the Act dated 17.02.2021, which is placed at page 28 of the paper book and the information called reads as under:- 19 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises Reason for selection :- (1) Claim of Large Value Refund (2) High ratio of refund to TDS. (3) Large refund claimed out of advance tax (Business). With respect to Income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 62/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 153Section 153C

TDS, TCS and self- assessment tax. Ground No. 10-General in nature. During the course of appellate proceedings appellant raised additional ground which is as under: - “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- on the basis of seized documents found in third party

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 63/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 132Section 153Section 153C

TDS, TCS and self- assessment tax. Ground No. 10-General in nature. During the course of appellate proceedings appellant raised additional ground which is as under: - “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- on the basis of seized documents found in third party

DINA NATH YADAV,PATNA vs. ITO WARD - 4(2), PATNA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 303/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUAMR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 10(37)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 250Section 3ASection 96

20,91,266/- as compensation against acquisition of land under NH Act, 1956. It is seen that TDS was made u/s 194LA of the Act and thereby the Ld. AO held that this was not a case of compulsory acquisition and accordingly not eligible for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act. 1.3 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached

ASHOK KUMAR,BHOJPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, ARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 259/PAT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 40

20% out of expenses claimed under various heads. (8) For that the sustenance of addition/disallowances of Rs.7,26,001/-, Rs. 10,56,328/-, Rs.32,71,379/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.76.191/- by the Ld. CIT(A) are wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. (9) For that the whole order