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.

10 results for “TDS”+ Section 282clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai291Delhi265Bangalore240Karnataka106Chennai95Kolkata55Hyderabad53Chandigarh52Ahmedabad45Jaipur40Pune39Indore23Rajkot16Cuttack14Nagpur13Cochin11Raipur10Surat9Lucknow7Agra6Visakhapatnam5Amritsar5Jodhpur4Allahabad2Ranchi2SC2Patna2Jabalpur1Guwahati1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)11Addition to Income9Section 282A(1)7TDS7Section 1486Section 143(1)6Section 133(6)6Reassessment5Limitation/Time-bar5Section 80P(2)(a)

SHRI JAGANNATH TRANSPORT CORPORATION, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 162/RPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 162/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2023-24)

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250

282/- oy the CPC and disallowed the TDS of Rs. 23,10,053/-is correct and justified. The contention made by the appellant is not acceptable. The ground raised by the appellant is dismissed. 5. At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee that the TDS claimed by the assessee in its return

4
Condonation of Delay4
Section 143(3)3

RAMAN VASU THACHISARIL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD- JAGDALPUR, JAGDALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/RPR/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.91/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Raman Vasu Thachisaril Ramanalayam Clappana, Kollam, Amrithapuri S.O-690 546 Kerala, India Pan: Adopt0795N

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 282A(1)

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, I hereby condone the delay of 396 days and proceed to hear the matter on merits. 4. The contention in law as assailed by the Ld. Counsel

MANOJ KUMAR SAHU, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.475/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Manoj Kumar Sahu 151, Village: Rajpur, Tehsil: Dhamdha, Dist. Durg-491 331 (C.G.) Pan: Eomps2921J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 282A(1)

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, and (iii) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. 3. Coming to the merits of the case, parties herein submitted that in the quantum appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.474/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2013-14, relief

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, and (iii) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. A.Y.2011-12 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has assailed legal ground by submitting that the reasons recorded for reassessment proceedings are based on incorrect facts

NEELAM CHANDRAKAR, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, and (iii) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. A.Y.2011-12 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has assailed legal ground by submitting that the reasons recorded for reassessment proceedings are based on incorrect facts

LEELADHAR CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 442/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, and (iii) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. A.Y.2011-12 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has assailed legal ground by submitting that the reasons recorded for reassessment proceedings are based on incorrect facts

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

THE GRAMIN SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), RAIPUR (CG)

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

ITA 31/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Gramin Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3), Vill. Mohda Tilda, Aaykar Bhavan, Raipur, Civil Lines, Raipur (Cg). Raipur, Pan: Aaaag9755H Raipur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 28Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

282 (SC), the Assessing Officer held that interest that accrues on funds not required immediately by the assessee for its business purposes and which have been only invested in specified securities, all such investments cannot be said to be attributable either to the activity mentioned in section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act or in section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. PSA CONSTRUCTION, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 145/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250(4)Section 253

Section 44AB. , 1.3 The assessee was visited with Survey operation u/s 133A on 08.03.2016relevant to the A.Y 2016-17. 1.4 Chronology of events; S. Date Events Remarks I No. 1. 24.09.2012 Return of Income filed u/s 139(1) along All these events took with Audited Balance Sheet and Tax place much before Audit Report

VIMLESH KUMAR SHARMA,KORBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 215/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 215/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vimlesh Kumar Sharma 1, Main Road, Opp. Prakash Petrol Pump, Bankimogra, Korba (C.G.)-495447 Pan : Anops4525M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250(1)Section 282

Section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The first notice i.e. ITNS-37 was issued for the year under consideration dated 01.01.2021 fixing the hearing on 15.01.2021 but on 15.01.2021 neither any reply was filed by the appellant nor any adjournment was received. Another notice was issued for the year under consideration dated 17.08.2021 fixing the hearing