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.

3 results for “TDS”+ Section 80Gclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai117Delhi97Bangalore51Ahmedabad44Chennai28Chandigarh28Kolkata24Pune17Jaipur16Lucknow12Hyderabad11Indore9Rajkot8Surat4Agra3Amritsar3Raipur3Ranchi3Allahabad2SC2Jodhpur2Cuttack1Visakhapatnam1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 2635Section 1473Addition to Income3Section 12A2Section 80G(5)2Disallowance2

SHRI SUDHARM JAIN SEWA SADHNA KENDRA EVAM SIKSHAN SANSTHAN, KANKER,KANKER vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

ITA 118/RPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.118/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2024-25 Shri Sudharm Jain Sewa Sadhna Kendra Evam Sikshan Sansthan Shantipara, Near Bus Stand, Sambalpur, Kanker-494 435 Pan: Aasts6803K

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Golechha, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, after relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay

DY. C.I.T.1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. JSPL,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 210/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Bilaspur- Vs Jspl, 495004 Kharsia Road, Raighagh(Cg) Pan No. : Aabcj 4683 J (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr Assessee By : Shri Mayank Jain, Ar Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Bilaspur, Dated 31.03.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Amount To The Extent Of Rs.2,10,89,707/- Out Of Disallowance Of Rs.3,36,18,098/- Made By The Ao Under The Head Corporate Social Responsibility Expenses. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company, A Subsidiary Of Jindal Steel &.Power Limited (Jspl). It Derives Income From Power Generation & Mining. The Company Has Commenced The Commercial Generation Of Thermal Power From Its First Of The Four Units Of 250Mw Each From 08.12.2007. The Assessee Company Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Year Under Consideration Declaring

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR
Section 37Section 37(1)

section 135 the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been made mandatory for companies having net worth of Rs. 500 crores or more OR having turnover of Rs. 1000 crore or more OR having net profit of Rs. 5 crores or more during any financial year, such company has to expend minimum 2% of net profit in CSR activities

BHARAT BENEFICATION & POWER PVT. LTD., RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 336/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 336/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

80G of the Act. Therefore, the AO did not inquire and verify and allowed relied without proper inquiry and passed the assessment order without proper consideration of law and application of mind. On this issue as well, he has left loose ends. 7. As regards the objection of the assessee, that the entire loan (Rs 55,00,000/-) transaction