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 90(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,700Delhi1,564Bangalore685Chennai523Kolkata406Cochin268Hyderabad236Ahmedabad195Jaipur163Indore161Raipur152Karnataka123Chandigarh89Pune86Surat67Nagpur53Lucknow46Cuttack36Visakhapatnam33Rajkot33Guwahati24Ranchi20Jodhpur17Telangana13SC11Dehradun11Amritsar9Patna9Agra5Varanasi3Panaji3Jabalpur2Calcutta2Punjab & Haryana2

Key Topics

Section 25010Addition to Income7TDS6Natural Justice5Section 253(3)4Section 133A4Section 194C4Survey u/s 133A4Limitation/Time-bar4Section 143(2)

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)

90,000/- Ajay Kumar 04-06-2008 PNB-9926 817898 2,80,000/- Ajay Kumar 16-06-2008 PNB-9926 821347 3,50,000/- Ajay Kumar 18-02-2009 PNB-9926 797751 1,00,000/- Ajay Kumar 18-02-2009 PNB-9926 797754 2,00,000/- Ajay Kumar 14-03-2009 PNB-9926 797758 40,000/- Anirudh Yadav

KUMAR SAURABH,WEST BENGAL vs. ITO WARD 4 (1), PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3
Section 142(1)3
Section 143(3)3
ITA 345/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed
ITAT Patna
26 Sept 2024
AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.345/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 234Section 250

TDS certificate has been issued by State Bank of Germany. 3) That the appellant bona fide submitted Form-67 duly filled up all the particulars, so the appellant should not be penalized on this ground. 4) That the NFAC erred in law and facts of the case by upholding the enhancement of interest u/s 2348 and 234C

SHIV SHANKAR SINGH CONTRACT PVT LTD,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFAPUR

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

ITA 94/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 250Section 253(3)

section 253(3) of Sixty days has expired. However, as decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in the order dated 23/09/2021, the period till 02/10/2021 shall stand excluded and a limitation period of 90 days would be available. 3) That in view of the above order of Hon'ble Supreme Court

SHIV SHANKAR SINGH CONTRACT PVT LTD,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFAPUR

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

ITA 91/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 250Section 253(3)

section 253(3) of Sixty days has expired. However, as decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in the order dated 23/09/2021, the period till 02/10/2021 shall stand excluded and a limitation period of 90 days would be available. 3) That in view of the above order of Hon'ble Supreme Court

SHIV SHANKAR SINGH CONTRACT PVT LTD,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFAPUR

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

ITA 92/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 250Section 253(3)

section 253(3) of Sixty days has expired. However, as decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in the order dated 23/09/2021, the period till 02/10/2021 shall stand excluded and a limitation period of 90 days would be available. 3) That in view of the above order of Hon'ble Supreme Court

SHIV SHANKAR SINGH CONTRACT PVT LTD,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFAPUR

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

ITA 93/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 250Section 253(3)

section 253(3) of Sixty days has expired. However, as decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in the order dated 23/09/2021, the period till 02/10/2021 shall stand excluded and a limitation period of 90 days would be available. 3) That in view of the above order of Hon'ble Supreme Court

PIONEER EDUCATION SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

ITA 405/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 405/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Pioneer Education Society,……….…….....……Appellant C-310/311, Unitech Business Zone Nirvana Country, South City-Ii, Sector-50, Haryana, Pin Code No.122018 [Pan:Aadap0174C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-1(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, New Dak Bunglow, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Yatin Sharma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

2 Pioneer Education Society Rs.6,58,04,004/- during FY 2015-16. The company furnished copy of ITR, copy of audit report, confirmation and bank statement in this regard. The assessee has shown unsecured loan amount of Rs.6,47,49,004/- only from GEMS, therefore, the difference of Rs.10,55,000/- (Rs.6,58,04,004/- minus Rs.6

PRERNA AGENCY PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 285/PAT/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Mar 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Section 151 of the Act was provided to the assessee. The assessee filed objection and also filed copy of financial statement, ledger copy of Rashidhan Traders Pvt. Ltd., copy of MCA details, copy of HDFC bank statement and copy of tax audit. AO after considering the objection as well as document held that an amount

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

section 44AD and by stating so the representative of the assessee has argued that the total income disclosed by the assessee is equal to 15.75% of the total receipt of Rs. 20,82,626/-. The return of income and the computation sheet enclosed with the paper book and placed as page…… to …… of P.B. established this fact. The assessing officer