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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Section 2(15)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,119Delhi4,033Bangalore2,009Chennai1,492Kolkata984Hyderabad593Pune561Ahmedabad501Jaipur352Indore309Chandigarh292Karnataka276Raipur276Cochin240Nagpur236Surat192Patna191Visakhapatnam174Rajkot124Lucknow95Cuttack87Amritsar68Jodhpur56Dehradun52Panaji50Ranchi45Jabalpur44Telangana39Guwahati38Agra33Allahabad22SC21Kerala14Varanasi13Calcutta12Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan5Orissa3Punjab & Haryana3Uttarakhand3J&K2Bombay1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 116Section 11(2)6Addition to Income4Section 13(8)3Section 2(15)3Section 11(3)3Section 33Exemption3Depreciation3Section 206C

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

ITA/6/2021HC Rajasthan01 Nov 2022

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

15) Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. Therefore, if the income is included under any one of the heads

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

15) are attracted? ii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law in allowing the benefits of set apart u/s 11(2) of the Act, deleting the additions of Rs. 79,76,39,913/- as unspent amount in spite of the fact that the provision of section

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)

15) are attracted? ii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law in allowing the benefits of set apart u/s 11(2) of the Act, deleting the additions of Rs. 79,76,39,913/- as unspent amount in spite of the fact that the provision of section

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)

15) are attracted? ii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law in allowing the benefits of set apart u/s 11(2) of the Act, deleting the additions of Rs. 79,76,39,913/- as unspent amount in spite of the fact that the provision of 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

2 and Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax3. 15) In all these cases it was held that the recipient of the income on which TDS has not been deducted, even though it was liable to such deduction under the Income Tax Act, had already included that amount in its income and paid taxes