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.

56 results for “TDS”+ Section 11(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,670Delhi4,593Bangalore2,376Chennai1,707Kolkata1,197Pune912Hyderabad592Ahmedabad563Jaipur407Raipur401Indore370Karnataka308Cochin304Chandigarh279Nagpur261Surat207Visakhapatnam183Rajkot144Lucknow124Cuttack91Amritsar82Jodhpur66Patna60Ranchi56Dehradun52Agra49Panaji46Telangana44Guwahati38Jabalpur22SC21Allahabad20Varanasi14Kerala13Calcutta11Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6J&K3Punjab & Haryana3Uttarakhand3Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Disallowance42Depreciation34Addition to Income33Section 80I28Section 14A28Section 35E26Section 234A26Section 271C24Section 143(3)23Section 263

ITO, TDS,, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 17/RAN/2022[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 133Section 133A

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act by holding that "Admittedly, in this case despite making contrary observation, the ITO/TDS has accepted the transportation payment as genuine that is why he has computed the TDS liability on those payments u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A). Therefore, it is not in dispute that the transportation payments has been

ITO, TDS, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHHINAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 18/RAN/2022[16-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi

Showing 1–20 of 56 · Page 1 of 3

23
Section 32(2)14
TDS10
27 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 133Section 133A

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act by holding that "Admittedly, in this case despite making contrary observation, the ITO/TDS has accepted the transportation payment as genuine that is why he has computed the TDS liability on those payments u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A). Therefore, it is not in dispute that the transportation payments has been

BADRINATH SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,ADITYAPUR, WEST SINGHBHUM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1 JSR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/RAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 142(1) by the assessing\nofficer which is not in accordance with the accepted and well\nestablished norms of assessment and therefore, the order under\nsection 144 passed by the assessing officer is bad in law and\ndeserves to be cancelled.\nWrongful Addition of Stocks\n1.4 For ground 1: That the Ld. AO has grossly erred

M/S MANIKARAN POWER LTD,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 471/RAN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 01/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) A.C.I.T., Manikaran Power Limited, Central Circle-2, Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Vs. Ranchi. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) J.C.I.T. (In Situ), Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Ranchi. Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee Manikaran Power Limited, A.C.I.T., Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee

TDS thereon. These findings of the ld. P a g e 9 | 10 IT(SS)A 01/Ran/2025 & ITA 471/Ran/2025 JCIT Vs. Manikaran Power Ltd. CIT(A) have also not been dislodged. Anyhow as the case may be, the fact remains that the recipients of ₹ 57.00 lacs and ₹ 36.00 lacs have duly disclosed the same in their ITR and that disallowing

M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,,DHANBAD vs. JCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 76/RAN/2024[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194ASection 201Section 271CSection 273BSection 40

TDS Dhanbad, vide order dated 01/05/2018 (parallel orders for each year) and same being confirmed by CIT(A) NFAC vide order dated 30/01/2024 (parallel orders for each year). 2. That at the very outset we challenge the very initiation of the penalty proceedings vide notice dated 28/02/2018 (parallel notice for each year) to the extent that the same has been

M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,DHANBAD vs. JT. CIT, TDS,, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 75/RAN/2024[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194ASection 201Section 271CSection 273BSection 40

TDS Dhanbad, vide order dated 01/05/2018 (parallel orders for each year) and same being confirmed by CIT(A) NFAC vide order dated 30/01/2024 (parallel orders for each year). 2. That at the very outset we challenge the very initiation of the penalty proceedings vide notice dated 28/02/2018 (parallel notice for each year) to the extent that the same has been

M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,DHANBAD vs. JCIT TDS, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 77/RAN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194ASection 201Section 271CSection 273BSection 40

TDS Dhanbad, vide order dated 01/05/2018 (parallel orders for each year) and same being confirmed by CIT(A) NFAC vide order dated 30/01/2024 (parallel orders for each year). 2. That at the very outset we challenge the very initiation of the penalty proceedings vide notice dated 28/02/2018 (parallel notice for each year) to the extent that the same has been

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

ITA 165/RAN/2017[07-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

11,86,674\n1,10,13,17,344 82,28,00,000 58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over

DCIT CIR-1 , RANCHI vs. M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD, RANCHI

ITA 178/RAN/2017[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

11,86,674\n1,10,13,17,344\n82,28,00,000\n58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

ITA 300/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

11,471/- and Cash at Bank of Rs. 44,55,814/- in\ntheir balance sheet respectively.\nOn analysis of the above-mentioned Cheque in Hand, Cash at Bank and Income tax seizure, it\nclearly shows that abnormal and huge amounts in the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2012 of aforementioned\npersons have been disclosed. The accumulative value of balance

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), HAZARIBAG vs. SANJAY KUMAR UPADHYAY, HAZARIBAG

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

ITA 94/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

TDS Return by the contractee Government Department (EE, REO, Works Division, Hazaribag) (ii) The appellant has already declared higher turnover as per the audited profit & loss account as compared to the gross receipts as appearing in the Form No. 26AS. (iii) The AO has not established that the appellant has actually received the said amount of Rs. 11

SHRI NAVNEET MODI,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 53/RAN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.53/Ran/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Navneet Modi….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Modi House, Kanke Dam Side Road, Kanke, Ranchi-834008. [Pan: Actpm1511F] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi.………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)

TDS certificate to the assessee at the time of filing of Income Tax Return for the assessment year under consideration. The ld. Assessing Officer rejected all the contentions made by the assessee on single line order that the contention of the assessee was not accepted and the amount is treated as income not disclosed and levied the impugned penalty. I.T.A

ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY,DHANBAD vs. PR. CIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 11/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

11,78,852/- (vi) Plumbing material of ₹ 1,61,090/- (vii) Marble & Tiles of ₹ 17,73,356/- (b) Payment made to land owner of ₹ 31,06,375/- (c) Source & Advance of ₹ 10,42,27,450/- received in lieu of allotment of flats. "That the appellant appeared before the PCIT Dhanbad and filed the details of all the aforesaid expenses with

ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, RANCHI vs. M/S. R.V.S. EDUCATIONAL TRUST, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 24/RAN/2020[16-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through : Hybrid Mode) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.24/Ran/2020 (Ǔ""ȡ[""""[/ A.Y. :2016-2017) Acit, Exemption Circle, Ranchi Vs. M/S Rvs Educational Trust, C/O Binda Apartments (India) Private Limited, Siroman Nagar, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur-831012 ̾Ĉĭēıĕĸù Ĭĝń/Pan No. : Aaatr4456M (\ "Ȣ"ȡ"ȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×""ȸ/ Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Shikesh Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Swaroop Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

1)(a) of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Rajesthan High Court in Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation. In the case of Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of DIT (E) Vs span foundation 178 Taxman, 436(Del), it was held that on payment of funds borrowed for construction of the building wasto

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/RAN/2017[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 31(1)Section 32(1)Section 32(2)

11. Now, we would like to decide ITA No. 290/Ran/2017. C.O. No. 07/Ran/2018 AY: 2008-09 M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited 12. In the instant appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 22,53,48,000/- by disallowance under the head

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 298/RAN/2017[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 31(1)Section 32(1)Section 32(2)

11. Now, we would like to decide ITA No. 290/Ran/2017. C.O. No. 07/Ran/2018 AY: 2008-09 M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited 12. In the instant appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 22,53,48,000/- by disallowance under the head

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , RANCHI vs. CCL LTD , RANCHI

ITA 37/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure\nAllowability of (Welfare expenses of employees) - Assessee-\ncompany was engaged in business of coal mining It claimed\nexpenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen,\nhostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same\non ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained\nand that assessee

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

ITA 173/RAN/2017[07-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

11,86,674\n1,10,13,17,344 82,28,00,000 58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over

DCIT CIR-1,, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

ITA 174/RAN/2017[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

11,86,674\n1,10,13,17,344\n82,28,00,000\n58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over

ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

ITA 302/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

11,471/- and Cash at Bank of Rs. 44,55,814/- in\ntheir balance sheet respectively.\nOn analysis of the above-mentioned Cheque in Hand, Cash at Bank and Income tax seizure, it\nclearly shows that abnormal and huge amounts in the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2012 of aforementioned\npersons have been disclosed. The accumulative value of balance