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.

189 results for “TDS”+ Section 88clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,337Mumbai1,205Bangalore575Chennai461Indore429Kolkata288Hyderabad269Ahmedabad247Pune189Jaipur155Chandigarh143Karnataka124Visakhapatnam123Cochin118Raipur112Cuttack95Ranchi67Surat57Amritsar40Guwahati36Agra33Rajkot33Lucknow32Jodhpur26Nagpur26Allahabad21Patna19Kerala18Telangana13Dehradun13SC7Jabalpur5Calcutta3Panaji2Gauhati1Varanasi1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 234E302Section 200A176Section 154118TDS75Section 25049Addition to Income45Section 143(3)40Section 4035Deduction30Section 10A

RAJENDRA GANPAT JAGTAP,PUNE vs. ITO WARD(8)(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2587/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri S.D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 194I

Section TDS-194I) 2,97,71,698/- 2.1. The Assessing Officer, therefore, reopened the assessment by recording reasons as per the provisions of sec.147 and notice u/sec.148 was issued to the assessee on 19.04.2022. The assessee, in response to the same, filed return of income on 02.03.2024 declaring total income at Rs.17,54,860/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment

Showing 1–20 of 189 · Page 1 of 10

...
29
Disallowance25
Section 80P(2)(d)24

DINESH DATTATRAY SHINDE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1, KOLHAUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2286/PUN/2025[2014-15 - Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 26Q

88 ITR 192 (SC). The decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court(supra) was followed by ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS) [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78. 6. In this case, Late Fee under section

DINESH DATTATRAY SHINDE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2285/PUN/2025[2014-15- Q3]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 26Q

88 ITR 192 (SC). The decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court(supra) was followed by ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS) [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78. 6. In this case, Late Fee under section

DINESH DATTATRAY SHINDE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2287/PUN/2025[2014-15- Q4]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250Section 26Q

88 ITR 192 (SC). The decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court(supra) was followed by ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS) [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78. 6. In this case, Late Fee under section

MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT RURAL HOSPITAL,,SINNAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 655/PUN/2018[2014-15 (Q2/24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act was deleted. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union

JUNAGADE HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (T D S),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1018/PUN/2018[2013-14 (Q3/26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act was deleted. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union

MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT RURAL HOSPITAL,,SINNAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 659/PUN/2018[2015-16 (Q2/24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act was deleted. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union

MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT RURAL HOSPITAL,,SINNAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 660/PUN/2018[2015-16 (Q3/24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act was deleted. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union

MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT RURAL HOSPITAL,,SINNAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 651/PUN/2018[2013-14 (Q2/24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act was deleted. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union

JUNAGADE HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (T D S),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1026/PUN/2018[2014-15 (Q2/26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act was deleted. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union

JUNAGADE HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (T D S),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1023/PUN/2018[2014-15 ( Q3/24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act was deleted. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union

JUNAGADE HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (T D S),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1027/PUN/2018[2014-15 (Q3/26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act was deleted. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union

MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT RURAL HOSPITAL,,SINNAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 652/PUN/2018[2013-14 (Q3-24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act was deleted. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union

JUNAGADE HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (T D S),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1021/PUN/2018[2014-15 (Q1/24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act was deleted. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union

JUNAGADE HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (T D S),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1022/PUN/2018[2014-15 (Q2/24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act was deleted. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union

JUNAGADE HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (T D S),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1020/PUN/2018[2013-14 (Q4/24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act was deleted. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union

MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT RURAL HOSPITAL,,SINNAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 658/PUN/2018[2015-16 (Q1/24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act was deleted. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union

JUNAGADE HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (T D S),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1019/PUN/2018[2013-14 (Q4-26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act was deleted. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union

JUNAGADE HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (T D S),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1025/PUN/2018[2014-15 (Q1/26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act was deleted. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union

MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT RURAL HOSPITAL,,SINNAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 657/PUN/2018[2014-15 (Q4/24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2018

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Accordingly, late filing fees charged under section 234E of the Act was deleted. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union