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.

2 results for “TDS”+ Section 80A(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi23Mumbai20Hyderabad18Bangalore17Jaipur12Cochin10Ahmedabad9Guwahati5Nagpur5Chennai4Lucknow3Rajkot2Karnataka2Jabalpur2Pune1Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)4Section 80J4Section 402Section 14A2Section 80I2Deduction2Disallowance2Addition to Income2Survey u/s 133A2

ATUL AUTO LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal is allowed

ITA 214/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80ISection 80J

80A(C). The assessee failed claim the deduction in the ITA Nos.214&251/Rjt/2016 Atul Auto Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2012-13 original return of income filed under Section 139(1) and the same is not allowable. 15. Per contra, the Ld. A.R. appearing for the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A) and also submitted that the Revised return

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S ATUL AUTO LIMITED,, SHAPAR.VERAVAL

The appeal is allowed

ITA 251/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80ISection 80J

80A(C). The assessee failed claim the deduction in the ITA Nos.214&251/Rjt/2016 Atul Auto Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2012-13 original return of income filed under Section 139(1) and the same is not allowable. 15. Per contra, the Ld. A.R. appearing for the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A) and also submitted that the Revised return