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.

15 results for “TDS”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi197Mumbai195Ahmedabad67Cochin58Jaipur47Bangalore46Chennai45Hyderabad23Surat23Kolkata23Chandigarh20Rajkot19Agra17Indore17Pune15Lucknow14Raipur11Cuttack11Amritsar10Patna9Visakhapatnam7Guwahati7Nagpur6Varanasi3Jabalpur2Dehradun2Allahabad1Calcutta1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 69A26Section 14823Section 14721Addition to Income13Section 142(1)10Section 14410Cash Deposit10Unexplained Money8Section 133(6)6Section 153A

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2338/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

section 69A has no application. Reply: During assessment proceedings, the assessee avoided to comply to the show cause notice. Therefore, in absence of any explanation, the AO was compelled to complete the assessment on the basis of information available on record before the limitation of time which would have got time barred on 31/12/2018. 13. In para 20, the assessee

6
TDS6
Reopening of Assessment4

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2340/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

section 69A has no application. Reply: During assessment proceedings, the assessee avoided to comply to the show cause notice. Therefore, in absence of any explanation, the AO was compelled to complete the assessment on the basis of information available on record before the limitation of time which would have got time barred on 31/12/2018. 13. In para 20, the assessee

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO - WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2339/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

section 69A has no application. Reply: During assessment proceedings, the assessee avoided to comply to the show cause notice. Therefore, in absence of any explanation, the AO was compelled to complete the assessment on the basis of information available on record before the limitation of time which would have got time barred on 31/12/2018. 13. In para 20, the assessee

SAPANA DHARMENDRA SHAH,MALEGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, MALEGAON, MALEGAON

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

ITA 2217/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2217/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sapana Dharmendra Shah, The Income Tax Officer, Khodiyar Bhavan, Ramsetu, Ward – 1, Malegaon Opp. Gayatri Mangal Karyala, Vs. Malegaon, Nashik-423203 Pan : Belps3009B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Mutha (Virtual) Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 27-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File His Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19. Based On The Information Flagged By The Cbdt Through Insight Portal Under The Head “Nms Category”, It Was Found That During The Relevant Ay 2018-19, The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.2,91,03,000/- In Her Bank Account Maintained With The Malegaon Merchant‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd. In The Name Of M/S Shree Kakaji Masale & Foods. Further, There Is Also Tds Made To The Tune Of Rs.1,524/- U/S 194A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) On „Interest Other Than „Interest On Securities‟ Against A Total Credit Of Rs.15,240/- By The Malegaon Merchant‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd., Which Has Not Been Disclosed To The Department. Since, The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 05.04.2022 Which Was Duly Served Upon The Assessee. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Did Not File Her Return Of Income. Thereafter, Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act As Well As Show Cause Notice Were Issued, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Certain

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mutha (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 69A

TDS made to the tune of Rs.1,524/- u/s 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on „interest other than „Interest on securities‟ against a total credit of Rs.15,240/- by The Malegaon Merchant‟s Co-op Bank Ltd., which has not been disclosed to the Department. Since, the assessee had not filed her return of income, notice

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

TDS certificates / 15G forms for verification. The assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The invocation of 6 CO No.43/PUN/2025 provisions of section 115BBE of the Act was also challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 8. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee

RATAN KISAN BORADE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 949/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi (Virtual)
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

TDS statement, Ld.AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act by carrying out the re-assessment proceedings. In response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee furnished return on 04/07/2023 declaring income of Rs. 10,609/-. Thereafter, the details filed by the assessee were examined by the Ld.AO and concluded the re-assessment 3 ITA.No.949/PUN

DILIP GULAB RAUT,DHULE vs. ADDL JCI A DELHI, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Section 69A ignoring that the amount was part of legitimate business transactions. ITA No.517/PUN/2025[A] 2. That the learned CIT(A) failed to consider the supporting documents proving that the deposits were used for prepaid recharges on the Vakrangee portal. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in considering Rs.9,000 as commission income based on an arbitrary calculation rather

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 395/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 263Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 69A

69A of the Act. His impugned detailed directions under challenge hold that the Assessing Officer did 2 ITA 395 of 2019 Sachin Ramdas Mohite A.Y. 2013-14 not enquire into all relevant issues involving the assessee’s foregoing deposits and business turnover whilst framing the assessment and therefore, the same attract section 263 jurisdiction. This is what leaves the assessee

PRESHIT KRISHAN MHATRE,RAIGARH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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

ITA 2735/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GundherFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha – JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 69A

TDS return other interest (section 194A) – Rs.34261/- 4. He therefore, reopened the case of the assessee after recording satisfaction as per the provisions of section 147 of the Act and accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 19.03.2020 was issued and served on the assessee. Since the assessee did not file any return in response to the notice

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

TDS. Thus, he submits that the appellant had discharged the onus lying upon it in terms of provisions of section 19 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 68 of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO was not justified in making the addition of unsecured loans. E. As regards, the addition made on account

PARVATI STEEL RE ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-2, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 1741/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 69A

69A and brought to tax the same. Similarly, the Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.3,86,810/- being the interest income received on which TDS of Rs.38,681/- was made. Similarly, on the basis of TCS statement uploaded, the Assessing Officer brought to tax an amount of Rs.60,01,813/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment

SARIKA VITTHAL GUND,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 1836/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 69A

69A of the Act (similar addition was made for assessment year 2014-15 amounting to Rs.1,08,73,605/-). 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC with a delay of 229 days. However, in absence of any proper explanation for the delay in filing of the appeal, the CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine

SARIKA VITTHAL GUND,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 1835/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 69A

69A of the Act (similar addition was made for assessment year 2014-15 amounting to Rs.1,08,73,605/-). 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC with a delay of 229 days. However, in absence of any proper explanation for the delay in filing of the appeal, the CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1826/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

section 147 is permissible even if the Assessing officer gathers his reasons to believe from the very same record as has been the subject matter of the completed assessment proceedings. There might indeed be a presumption that the assessment proceedings have been regularly conducted, but there can be no presumption that even when the order of assessment is silent

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1823/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

section 147 is permissible even if the Assessing officer gathers his reasons to believe from the very same record as has been the subject matter of the completed assessment proceedings. There might indeed be a presumption that the assessment proceedings have been regularly conducted, but there can be no presumption that even when the order of assessment is silent