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 3clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,086Delhi6,035Bangalore2,822Chennai2,486Kolkata1,714Pune1,158Ahmedabad763Hyderabad697Karnataka679Cochin565Patna556Jaipur478Indore420Raipur388Chandigarh331Nagpur284Visakhapatnam195Lucknow184Surat168Rajkot166Jodhpur110Cuttack99Dehradun83Ranchi81Telangana80Amritsar71Agra64Guwahati61Panaji58Jabalpur42Kerala34Calcutta28SC26Allahabad18Rajasthan10Varanasi9Himachal Pradesh8Punjab & Haryana7J&K5Orissa4Uttarakhand3Bombay1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

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

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

3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row,CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)". 11.8 Thus, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining

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 194C
3
Section 33
Depreciation3
Section 201
Section 201(1)
Section 263

3) [ITA-13/2025] Section 201(1) and under Section 201(1A) of Rs.2,753/- towards interest. 5. Learned CIT (TDS

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

TDS) Shimla …. Respondent. 3 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with M/s Rakesh Dhaulta, Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate Generals and M/s Arsh Rattan, Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate Generals, with Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Standing

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

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

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

SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 A Cl The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench "8" , Hyderabad The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad The Asst. Commissioner of lncome Tax , TDS

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

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

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

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. 2. The only plea advanced by Mr. Puneet Mittal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant is that supplementary work order dated 7th December, 2005 did not contain