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.

350 results for “TDS”+ Section 11(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,666Delhi4,618Bangalore2,378Chennai1,706Kolkata1,196Pune885Hyderabad602Ahmedabad561Jaipur407Indore370Raipur350Karnataka308Cochin304Chandigarh280Nagpur261Surat204Visakhapatnam179Rajkot144Lucknow125Cuttack91Amritsar76Jodhpur66Patna59Ranchi55Dehradun52Agra45Telangana44Panaji41Guwahati38Jabalpur22SC21Allahabad15Calcutta13Kerala13Himachal Pradesh8Varanasi7Rajasthan6J&K3Punjab & Haryana3Uttarakhand3Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)95TDS75Section 206C67Addition to Income48Disallowance47Section 143(3)33Natural Justice30Section 25029Deduction24Section 263

MOHAMMED USMAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RPR/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mohammed Usman C/25, Nandini Road, Power House, Bhilai-490 011, Dist. Durg Pan: Aafpu9292H

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, the said delay of 58 days involved in the present appeal is condoned. 5. In this case, the assessee has filed both legal grounds as well

Showing 1–20 of 350 · Page 1 of 18

...
19
Section 80P19
Depreciation19

DOLPHIN PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 58/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal KumarFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 68Section 801B(10)

11. Based on aforesaid additional grounds, the assumption of jurisdiction for making the assessment by the Ld. AO has been challenged, stating that in absence of separate order passed u/s 120(4)(b) authorizing the additional CIT to perform the functions and exercised the powers of an Ld. AO u/s 2(7A) and also in absence of an order

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 13/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 125/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 11/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 123/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 126/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 122/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BIJAPUR,BIJAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 244/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 121/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 124/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BIJAPUR,BIJAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 245/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (GEOLOGY & MINING), RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS/TCS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 214/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (GEOLOGY & MINING), RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS/TCS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 213/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BIJAPUR,BIJAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 243/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (GEOLOGY & MINING), RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS/TCS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 208/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 10/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 120/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 12/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (GEOLOGY & MINING), RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS/TCS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 211/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 206C

11. The AO observed that as per Section 206C of the Act the assessee remained under a statutory obligation to collect tax at source on any “Amount Payable” by the lease holders and it was not to be restricted only to the amount of royalty. Elaborating further, the A.O observed that the “Amount Payable” as envisaged in Section 206C