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.

6 results for “TDS”+ Section 2(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,586Mumbai5,555Bangalore2,664Chennai2,223Kolkata1,521Pune1,115Ahmedabad1,019Hyderabad794Indore710Cochin704Jaipur554Patna552Raipur450Chandigarh387Nagpur365Karnataka364Surat299Visakhapatnam255Rajkot225Cuttack209Lucknow196Amritsar140Dehradun122Jodhpur110Jabalpur71Agra70Ranchi70Guwahati65Panaji65Allahabad64Telangana59SC25Varanasi23Kerala16Calcutta16Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Punjab & Haryana4Orissa3J&K3Uttarakhand3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 2637Section 116Section 11(2)6Exemption4Addition to Income4Section 13(8)3Section 2(15)3Section 11(3)3Section 33Depreciation

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

2) of section 55 clause (a) having been amended, there is no stipulation with regard, to relinquishment of trusteeship. However, even in the case of tenancy right, the view taken by the Supreme Court, after the provision was substituted w.e.f. 1st April, 1995, is as above, which is squarely applicable to the assessees' case also. The further argument

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)
3
Section 12A2
TDS2
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

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 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

TDS) also ultimately held that there were specific defects. However, the ITAT found that merely because of a change of opinion, the order passed by the AO cannot be disturbed under Section 263 of the Act of 1961. It is only when the assessment order has been passed without making inquiry and verification from reasonable and prudent officer that

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

7 Company (India) Private Ltd 1, Singapore Airlines Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 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