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.

4 results for “TDS”+ Section 234B(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi894Mumbai811Bangalore424Kolkata99Ahmedabad76Chennai69Hyderabad66Jaipur42Karnataka29Pune29Chandigarh28Indore20Agra18Dehradun13Ranchi12Cochin10Surat10Lucknow9Rajkot8Visakhapatnam7Nagpur7Allahabad5Raipur5Cuttack4Patna4Jabalpur4Guwahati2Telangana2SC1Amritsar1Jodhpur1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(b)9Section 271(1)(c)6Addition to Income4Section 2503Section 1473Section 234B3Section 142(1)3Penalty3TDS3Natural Justice

ITO, WARD-4(1), PATNA vs. HEMANT KUMAR DAS, PATNA

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

ITA 97/PAT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)

3 contains two-fold of grievances, namely- (i) the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.50,11,003/-, which was disallowed with the aid of section 43B; (ii) the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.62,14,944/- and Rs.3,84,271/-, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer on account

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 216/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

TDS on rent is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in affirming charging interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs.3,94,200/- which is bad in fact and law of the case. 7. For that the appellant may not be treated as assessee

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 218/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

TDS on rent is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in affirming charging interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs.3,94,200/- which is bad in fact and law of the case. 7. For that the appellant may not be treated as assessee

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 217/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

TDS on rent is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in affirming charging interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs.3,94,200/- which is bad in fact and law of the case. 7. For that the appellant may not be treated as assessee