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 1clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,212Delhi5,958Bangalore2,822Chennai2,498Kolkata1,784Pune1,234Ahmedabad981Hyderabad826Cochin692Indore670Karnataka653Jaipur589Patna561Raipur457Chandigarh407Nagpur387Surat287Visakhapatnam267Rajkot216Lucknow209Cuttack203Amritsar147Dehradun126Jodhpur118Jabalpur94Ranchi89Panaji81Telangana79Agra74Guwahati70Allahabad67SC28Varanasi24Calcutta21Kerala17Rajasthan10Himachal Pradesh8Punjab & Haryana7J&K5Orissa4Uttarakhand3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 2637Section 116Section 11(2)6TDS6Exemption5Addition to Income5Section 2604Section 13(8)3Section 2(15)3Section 11(3)

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI BABA MOHAN RAM KALI KHOLI WALE

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/13/2025HC Rajasthan28 Mar 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 12ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 263

1. The challenge is to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter referred to as “ITAT”) dated 28.06.2024, whereby the order passed by the learned Commissioner Income Tax (TDS) (hereinafter referred to as “CIT TDS”) under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT LTD

ITA/6/2021
3
Section 33
Depreciation3
HC Rajasthan
01 Nov 2022

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections may not in terms apply to the trust now in question. These sections however embody nothing more or less than the principles which have been applied to all trusts in all countries. The principle

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN

ITA/279/2018HC Rajasthan17 Dec 2019

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,INDERJEET SINGH

For Appellant: SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KARTFor Respondent: Sri A. RAMA I{RISHNA REDDY, representing
Section 151Section 260

1-10-178, Varun Towers-ll, 6th Floor, e"'grrpui, H",/j"rrOaO_ SO6'Oi6: il;";;;" AND ...APPELLANT Assistant commissioner of rncome Tax, TDS circre - 2(r), Hyderabad, 4rh Froor, A- Block, l.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, HyOeraOa-O-_-S0O 001, fifri'lgin;--, ...RESPONDENT IANO:1OF2 018 Petition under section

C.I.T. CENTRAL, JAIPUR vs. PRADEEP LUNAWAT

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA/14/2011HC Rajasthan08 Nov 2019

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Section 2(13)Section 206CSection 3Section 6

Section 206 C(1-C) of the Income Tax Act is not attracted since the collection of toll under the Himachal Pradesh Tolls Act, 1975 is not in force at a Toll Plaza, but said contention is not pressed and it is however contended that the provisions of TCS is similar to that of TDS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/150/2017HC Rajasthan22 Jan 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)

TDS) on the one hand and not including the Income pertaining to it in the Return is not contrary to provisions of Income Tax Act more particularly Section 198 and 199? [2026:RJ-JP:2869-DB] (5 of 7) [ITA-150/2017] (iii) Whether the deletion of income on account of depositing the P.F. and ESI, qua the share

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/152/2017HC Rajasthan22 Jan 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)

TDS) on the one hand and not including the Income pertaining to it in the Return is not contrary to provisions of Income Tax Act more particularly Section 198 and 199? [2026:RJ-JP:2869-DB] (5 of 7) [ITA-150/2017] (iii) Whether the deletion of income on account of depositing the P.F. and ESI, qua the share

C I T JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/284/2010HC Rajasthan22 Jan 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)

TDS) on the one hand and not including the Income pertaining to it in the Return is not contrary to provisions of Income Tax Act more particularly Section 198 and 199? [2026:RJ-JP:2869-DB] (5 of 7) [ITA-150/2017] (iii) Whether the deletion of income on account of depositing the P.F. and ESI, qua the share

C.I.T. TDS, JAIPUR vs. M/S HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD.

ITA/65/2014HC Rajasthan11 May 2021

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

Section 260

Tds], Hyderabad, Hyderabad [34471 ...Appellant Between : AND M/s Jayadarshini Housing pvt.Ltd, Hyderabad, plot No.1246. Level .1, Gorlas Road No.62, Jubilee Hills] Hyderabati. ... Respondent counsel for the Apperrant(s) : Mr.A.Rama Krishna Reddy, Junior standing Counsel for the lncome Tax Department Counsel for the Respondents : - - - The Court delivered the foilowing : JUDGMENT I THE I{I.)'{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KoSHIY

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S OM METALS INFRA PROJECTS LTD.

Appeals of the department are dismissed, the Appellant do

ITA/121/2019HC Rajasthan26 Mar 2025

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

Section 260

TDS) Large Tax Payers Unit J.S.S.Towers, 100ft Ring Road, Banashankari III Stage, Phase 3, Banashankari, Bengaluru-560085. …Respondent (By Sri. K.V.Aravind, Advocate) ***** -: 2 :- This ITA is filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act 1961, arising out of the order dated 02.05.2018 passed in ITA Nos.2275 & 2276/Bang/2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014, praying to (a) Formulate

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, JAIPUR vs. M/S ANKIT CHIRAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

ITA/11/2019HC Rajasthan14 Sept 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Section 34

1. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 30th October, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP No. 564/2010, which was a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in FAO (OS) 11/2019 Page 2 of 6 short Act of 1996), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the same