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.

36 results for “TDS”+ Section 119(2)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi552Mumbai525Bangalore269Karnataka123Chennai119Chandigarh114Kolkata94Cochin63Jaipur57Raipur54Hyderabad52Pune43Indore39Ahmedabad36Cuttack30Surat28Nagpur19Visakhapatnam15Rajkot11Lucknow10Telangana10Ranchi9Patna8Agra7Guwahati7SC4Dehradun4Allahabad4Jodhpur2Punjab & Haryana1Calcutta1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 14A30Addition to Income26Section 26319Disallowance19Section 14818TDS16Section 143(1)14Depreciation13Section 8011Section 10(108)

JANKI WIND FARM DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1000/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

TDS credit but rejected the rectification for the double addition.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the mistake of double addition was apparent from the record and rectifiable under Section 154. Both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in rejecting the rectification claim.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "154", "139(9)", "119(2

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMIT INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 12A10
Section 15410
ITA 2259/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2259/Ahd/2016 With C.O.No.162/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 D.C.I.T., M/S. Amit Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1(3), Vs. Iscon House, Ahmedabad. C.G. Road, Nr. Citi Bank, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT. D.R
Section 2(22)(e)

TDS and have also paid back the said ICD along with interest during F. Y I 2008-09. Appellant's main objection was that in view of the various decisions including special bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Asstt. CIT v/s. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd.[2009] 118 ITD 1 (Mum.) (SB) and jurisdictional High Court decision

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1129/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah, with Shri Karan Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Alokkumar, CIT.D.R
Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80I

119 (Mum-Trib). It is a decision rendered on 28.6.2019. Bench has reproduced the discussion made in the assessee’s own case for earlier years. It reads as under: “9. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The issue involved in the present appeal, i.e. whether freebies

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 939/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah, with Shri Karan Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Alokkumar, CIT.D.R
Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80I

119 (Mum-Trib). It is a decision rendered on 28.6.2019. Bench has reproduced the discussion made in the assessee’s own case for earlier years. It reads as under: “9. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The issue involved in the present appeal, i.e. whether freebies

SHRI BALASHAH BAVA SANSTHA SARVAJANIK TRUST,ANAND vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee/applicant trust is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 303/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

2) of section 239 had existed on the Statute book, it is found that the prescription of two years would not sustain even when viewed in the backdrop of that provision as it existed at the relevant time. The outer limit which came to be constructed by CBDT could have at best been shored by section 119. However

SHRI BALASHAH BAVA SANSTHA SARVAJANIK TRUST,ANAND vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee/applicant trust is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

2) of section 239 had existed on the Statute book, it is found that the prescription of two years would not sustain even when viewed in the backdrop of that provision as it existed at the relevant time. The outer limit which came to be constructed by CBDT could have at best been shored by section 119. However

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2652/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

TDS Range, 380009 Ahmedabad-380014 [PAN No.AAACC0134G] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 07.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 19.10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This bunch of appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are filed against

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2578/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

TDS Range, 380009 Ahmedabad-380014 [PAN No.AAACC0134G] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 07.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 19.10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This bunch of appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are filed against

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1871/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

TDS Range, 380009 Ahmedabad-380014 [PAN No.AAACC0134G] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 07.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 19.10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This bunch of appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are filed against

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1129/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

TDS Range, 380009 Ahmedabad-380014 [PAN No.AAACC0134G] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 07.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 19.10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This bunch of appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are filed against

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2408/AHD/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

TDS Range, 380009 Ahmedabad-380014 [PAN No.AAACC0134G] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 07.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 19.10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This bunch of appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are filed against

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2406/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

TDS Range, 380009 Ahmedabad-380014 [PAN No.AAACC0134G] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 07.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 19.10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This bunch of appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are filed against

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1358/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

TDS Range, 380009 Ahmedabad-380014 [PAN No.AAACC0134G] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 07.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 19.10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This bunch of appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are filed against

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 821/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

TDS Range, 380009 Ahmedabad-380014 [PAN No.AAACC0134G] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 07.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 19.10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This bunch of appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are filed against

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1785/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14ASection 26(1)(iii)

TDS Range, 380009 Ahmedabad-380014 [PAN No.AAACC0134G] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 07.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 19.10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This bunch of appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are filed against

SMT. PASHIBEN PRAJAPATI FAMILY TRUST (DISC),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the manner as indicated above

ITA 305/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Has In-Turn Arisen From The Intimation Dated 07.12.2022 Issued By Cpc, Bengaluru, U/S.154(Cpc/2122/U5/ 314311772) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh R Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 164(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80C

2)(i) of the Income Tax Act is squarely applicable in the appellant's case. Hence, the decision of the AO by taxing the appellant at MMR is upheld. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 6.1 Further, the appellant contended the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Rs.9,531/-, Rs.57,186/- and Rs.87,761/- respectively

KAD STEEL ROLLING MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, TDS, ASHRAM ROAD,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 652/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 201Section 201(1)

2)(9), Ahmedabad. During the assessment of M/s Kad Steel Rolling for A.Y. 2013–14, it was found that the assessee had paid interest of Rs. 4,29,244 during the financial year 2012–13 to various parties but had not deducted TDS on these payments. The assessee submitted that the assessee had received Form No. 15G/H from the recipients

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 14/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. D.R
Section 14ASection 36Section 80

TDS needs to be given while giving effect to this order. 53.3 From the above direction, we note that the learned CIT-A has just instructed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee subject to the direction. As such, at the time of hearing the learned DR has not brought any infirmity in the direction given

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2047/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Dec 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. D.R
Section 14ASection 36Section 80

TDS needs to be given while giving effect to this order. 53.3 From the above direction, we note that the learned CIT-A has just instructed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee subject to the direction. As such, at the time of hearing the learned DR has not brought any infirmity in the direction given

KIRI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1513/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

TDS was effected on the commission payment. The said disallowance was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) 8. At the outset, it was submitted that the amounts have been paid to non-resident agents who are not tax payable entities in India for the services rendered abroad. The commission agents who have been paid commission do not have any permanent establishment