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.

9 results for “TDS”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi197Mumbai195Ahmedabad67Cochin58Jaipur47Bangalore46Chennai45Hyderabad23Surat23Kolkata23Chandigarh20Rajkot19Agra17Indore17Pune15Lucknow14Raipur11Cuttack11Amritsar10Patna9Guwahati7Nagpur6Visakhapatnam6Varanasi3Dehradun2Jabalpur2Calcutta1Jodhpur1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 14713Section 2508Section 142(1)8Section 1488Addition to Income7Section 2636Cash Deposit6Section 69A5Demonetization4TDS

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

section 69A. The appellant in its written submission bank statement, dated 09/11/2022 and 19/12/2022 has submitted the copies of form 26AS along with the chart showing details of Income earned by way of the salary/commission from NICT Tech P. Ltd. The appellant has been appointed as CSP agent by NICT Tech P Ltd. NICT has been appointed as business correspondent

4
Section 40A(3)3
Reassessment3

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)

section 69A of the Act and the judicial pronouncement in the case of Chuharmal vs. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) and made an addition of ₹1,25,24,480/- u/s 69A of the Act for the cash deposits in the bank account maintained with the Bank of Baroda which remained unexplained. An addition of ₹4,35,720/- appearing

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)

section 69A of the Act and the judicial pronouncement in the case of Chuharmal vs. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) and made an addition of ₹1,25,24,480/- u/s 69A of the Act for the cash deposits in the bank account maintained with the Bank of Baroda which remained unexplained. An addition of ₹4,35,720/- appearing

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

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

69A of the Act and assessed the same under Section 115BBE of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the cash deposits were from sale proceeds of the business of the appellant and at the time of declaration of demonetization the appellant had sufficient cash balance. 12. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well

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

TDS 7. deducted for the assessment year under consideration. 8. Reason for refund claimed, however advance tax was made on the basis income, reason for deviation with documentary evidences (calculations). Please reconcile your income with 26AS, 3CD and ITR alongwith detailed 8. clarification/justification and supporting evidences. 10. In reply to the notice dated 15.12.2020, the assessee furnished submissions

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

TDS”. The ld. Assessing Officer issued questionnaire and examined the issues. During the course of hearing, the assessee filed various details including ledger of operations, purchase bills of scrap material, sales ledger along with tax audit report. Considering these details, the ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment after making addition u/s 69A of the Act at Rs.1

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

69A of the Act to the income of the assessee as the assessee failed to furnish explanation for the same. Aggrieved with the order of the assessing officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), in the statement of facts and the grounds of appeal, the assessee stated that all the deposits

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

TDS is not deducted and even does not maintain any identity proof of these purchasers. The only method to verify whether the actual transactions have been conducted by the jeweller is to check the availability of the stocks during the days of huge cash sales. The appellant during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings