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.

9 results for “TDS”+ Addition to Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,325Mumbai3,192Bangalore1,320Chennai1,224Hyderabad658Kolkata573Ahmedabad488Pune352Jaipur351Raipur307Chandigarh291Cochin201Patna197Indore166Surat137Rajkot133Visakhapatnam130Lucknow120Nagpur106Cuttack98Ranchi79Jodhpur65Amritsar60Agra56Guwahati52Jabalpur41Dehradun34Panaji33Bombay22Allahabad19SC16Varanasi9

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)28Addition to Income7Section 143(3)5Section 133A4Section 14A4Section 44Deduction4Disallowance4Survey u/s 133A4TDS

TULSIANI INFRAVENTURES PVT. LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANASI

In the result the addition of Rs

ITA 75/VNS/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi22 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklatulsiani Infrastructure Vs. Dc/Acit, Private Limited, 37, ‘Central Circle, Varanashi Elgin Road, Civil Lines, Aaykar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor Allahabad- 211001 Maqbool Alam Road, Varanasi - 221002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadct8858R Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal Respondent By : Robin Chaudhary Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: (Jm): The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.05.2023, Passed By Cit (Appeals) Lucknow-3 For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed In Sec. 153 R.W.S 143(3) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In Various Grounds Of Appeal The Assessee Has Challenged The Addition Of Rs.41,64,28,242/- As Against Rs.3,50,15,393/- Surrendered/Offered By The Assessee. It Has Been Stated In The Grounds That The Addition Has Been Made By The Ao By Extrapolating The Figure Of Alleged On-Money Noted In Seized Documents Which Was Rough Detail Of Amount Received/ Receivable From The Buyers For The Booking

For Appellant: V.K. Jindal &For Respondent: Robin Chaudhary
Section 153

TDS made: b. Other miscellaneous expenses c. Construction related expenses Net Undisclosed Income (1-2) 41,64,28,242 Page 7 Tulsiani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DC/ACIT CC Varanasi 6. The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the said addition

3
Section 124(3)(a)2
Section 124(2)2

ASHOK KUMAR SINGH,GHAZIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (5), GHAZIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 30/VNS/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi09 Nov 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 148Section 69

addition of Rs.32,00,505/- made by the AO as unexplained deposits u/s 69 of the Act. The assessee is also aggrieved in not giving TDS credit of Rs.94,211/-, being the income

THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LIMITED,GORAKHPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 , GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 351/ALLD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

addition relating to unverified consignment sales expenses. 18 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 17.1 The AO noticed that the assessee has claimed expenses relating to consignment sales to the tune of Rs.72,08,335/-. Since the assessee did not furnish bills/vouchers and also the details of TDS deducted, the AO disallowed

DCIT,, GORAKHPUR vs. M/S MAHABIR JITE MILLS, LTD., GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 448/ALLD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

addition relating to unverified consignment sales expenses. 18 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 17.1 The AO noticed that the assessee has claimed expenses relating to consignment sales to the tune of Rs.72,08,335/-. Since the assessee did not furnish bills/vouchers and also the details of TDS deducted, the AO disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 , GORAKHPUR vs. THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LIMITED, GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 217/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

addition relating to unverified consignment sales expenses. 18 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 17.1 The AO noticed that the assessee has claimed expenses relating to consignment sales to the tune of Rs.72,08,335/-. Since the assessee did not furnish bills/vouchers and also the details of TDS deducted, the AO disallowed

THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LTD.,GORAKHPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 13/VNS/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

addition relating to unverified consignment sales expenses. 18 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 17.1 The AO noticed that the assessee has claimed expenses relating to consignment sales to the tune of Rs.72,08,335/-. Since the assessee did not furnish bills/vouchers and also the details of TDS deducted, the AO disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, VARANASI vs. PROMINENT DATAMATICS MARKETING PVT. LTD., , VARANASI

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

addition of Rs.8,22,70,213/-. It has been mentioned in the assessment order itself that the sum in question had been charged to profit and loss account, whereas it is no so, from a perusal of the profit and loss account (figure submitted along with return itself), it would be seen that there is no such figure "charged

SMT. SUDAMA DEVI L/H OF LATE LALCHAND YADAV,SONEBHADRA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 4/VNS/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Blesmt. Sudama Devi, Acit Circle-1, Varanasi. L/H Of Late Lalchand Yadav, Wie Colony Anpara, Sonebhadra, Uttar Pradesh- 231225

For Appellant: Shri R N Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A K Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 237Section 239(2)Section 44A

TDS deducted from the contract payments and a sum of Rs.16,07,030/- was claimed as refund. 3. The above said manual return was not processed. Hence the legal heir of the assessee filed grievance petitions more than once with CPC and also filed a grievance petition with “CPGRAMS” portal. The reply dated 28-02-2021 given to the assessee

RAMESH CHANDRA JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (5), GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 31/VNS/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Dec 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 56

TDS on the same have already been deducted by the bank appropriately but certificate for the same is not provided by the bank. I have set a request letter to bank for the confirmation of the same as on 22.04.2021 but no response received yet.” 2. This appeal has been filed beyond the time limit prescribed