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.

3 results for “TDS”+ Section 274clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai355Delhi343Bangalore172Karnataka84Chennai80Kolkata60Jaipur55Ahmedabad51Pune37Chandigarh31Raipur23Lucknow22Hyderabad21Dehradun20Surat18Rajkot13Indore11Amritsar10Agra8Cuttack8Visakhapatnam6Cochin6Jodhpur3Ranchi3Patna2Nagpur2Telangana2Varanasi2Allahabad2Jabalpur1SC1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 1474Section 271(1)(c)3Section 143(3)3Section 1483Section 2742

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

OM PRAAKSH SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/RAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Om Prakash Singh Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sankalp, East Jail Road, Ranchi- 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agkps0300D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manjit Verma, A/RFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mohanti, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234CSection 263Section 37(1)

section 148 of the Act was issued to assessee on 31.12.2016. In the assessee`s case the relevant assessment year is 2009-10, therefore the assessee`s case was reopened after the expiry of 4 Years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The settled position of law is that if an assessment for any year has been completed

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

274,81,81,206.28/-. The entire break up was shown in the notes to the accounts which reads as follows: P a g e 3 | 10 IT(SS)A 01/Ran/2025 & ITA 471/Ran/2025 JCIT Vs. Manikaran Power Ltd. It was a submission that in the course of assessment, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the part payments