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.

4 results for “TDS”+ Section 272clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi331Mumbai264Karnataka105Bangalore88Kolkata51Raipur45Chennai35Ahmedabad25Pune25Hyderabad24Jaipur17Visakhapatnam13Indore10Chandigarh9Nagpur6Jodhpur4Rajkot4Surat3Telangana3Cuttack2Lucknow2Guwahati2Allahabad2Kerala2Patna1Cochin1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 206C6Section 12A6Section 2636Section 143(3)5Section 143(2)3Section 142(1)2Section 682Section 43B2TDS2Addition to Income

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is dismissed

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

272 (Bom), held that amendment to section 68 is prospective and applicable only from assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, as per mandatory provisions of section 68 of the Act, the assessee needs to explain the source of the source, however, we note that assessee has failed to file the Page 21 of 37 I.T.A No. 363/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 Hollis

2

INCOME TAX OFFICER,TDS-3, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR vs. SAMPATLAL BADRILAL SOMANI, JAMNAGAR

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

ITA 298/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.298/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Tds – 3, Vs. Sampatlal Badrilal Somani 2Nd Floor, Taranjali Proprietor Of S. B. Metal Udyog, Buildign, P. N. Marg, Plot No. 4/A/1, Nr. Kriti Weight Jamnagar – 361008 Bridge, Shanker Tekri, Udyognagar, Jamnagar – 361004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhps0245D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Agarwal &
Section 143(3)Section 206CSection 206C(3)Section 206C(6)

272(A)(2)(k) was also proposed by the assessing officer to the prescribed authority. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, under section 206C(6) & 206C(7) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has allowed the appeal of the assessee, observing as follows

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 929/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 274Section 43BSection 68

TDS amounting to Rs. 57,298/-.\n(4). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition amounting to Rs.\n25,35,850/- on account of difference in receipts as per books of accounts and\nform 26AS.\n(5). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 30,50,000/-\non account of unexplained cash

SHREE SWAMINARAYAN MANDIR TRUST ,RAMPAR vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD - 1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in above terms

ITA 340/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.340/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

TDS on such expenses. The assessee even has failed to explain the nature and bifurcation of such religious expenses claimed. All the above facts prove that the expense claimed by the assessee are non-genuine and without any documentary evidence which point to the fact that all the transactions shown by the assessee in its ITR are manipulated to adjust