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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Section 271(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi991Mumbai912Bangalore315Chennai212Ahmedabad128Kolkata113Karnataka110Raipur98Hyderabad96Jaipur95Pune53Chandigarh34Indore33Nagpur31Rajkot27Visakhapatnam20Lucknow20Surat13Amritsar12Guwahati7Jabalpur7Patna6Jodhpur5Dehradun5Telangana5Varanasi4SC4Allahabad3Panaji3Cuttack3Agra2Cochin2Ranchi1Kerala1Orissa1

Key Topics

Addition to Income3Section 14A2Section 2602

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. N. Annapurna

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

ITTA/371/2005HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 154Section 260A

271 C was warranted. 8. About three months thereafter, on 1st May 2003, the CIT (A) suo motu passed an order under Section 154 of the Act. The opening lines of the said order stated: “in this case action for rectification of mistakes in the appeal order passed on 29th January 2003 was initiated under Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/577/2011HC Telangana28 Feb 2012

271(1)(c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. (iv) The assessee has booked various expenses of contractual nature, vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009, the assessee was asked to show cause why the same should not disallowed u/s40a(ia). In response thereto the assessee has only filed copy

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, vs. M/S. SAVIJANA SEA FOODS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITTA/55/2010HC Telangana20 Dec 2024

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 260

271. The Assessee also decided to pay in addition compensation amounting to Rs.1,18,38,705 in lieu of surrender of their rights in the flat. This expenditure was claimed by the Assessee as „revenue in nature‟ and was charged to the Profit and Loss Account („P&L Account‟). Proceedings before the AO 4. The Assessing Officer („AO‟) who picked

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited,

ITTA/439/2013HC Telangana19 Sept 2013
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately.” 7. This is the entire discussion on the said addition, in the assessment order. The amounts in question are substantial. The Assessing Officer must discuss the facts before he affirms his final ITA No. 439/2013 Page 4 of 5 conclusion, especially when significant additions are made creating tax liability. 8. CIT(Appeals

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others,

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITTA/210/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 260

271. The Assessee also decided to pay in addition compensation amounting to Rs.1,18,38,705 in lieu of surrender of their rights in the flat. This expenditure was claimed by the Assessee as „revenue in nature‟ and was charged to the Profit and Loss Account („P&L Account‟). Proceedings before the AO 4. The Assessing Officer („AO‟) who picked