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.

832 results for “TDS”+ Section 12clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,453Delhi4,412Bangalore2,278Chennai1,560Kolkata1,145Pune930Ahmedabad832Hyderabad785Indore678Jaipur540Chandigarh446Raipur421Cochin397Karnataka302Nagpur279Visakhapatnam277Surat262Cuttack211Rajkot190Lucknow138Amritsar119Jabalpur107Jodhpur89Dehradun69Agra65Ranchi61Patna59Allahabad58Panaji54Guwahati47Telangana38SC23Calcutta15Varanasi14Kerala13Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Punjab & Haryana5Uttarakhand3J&K2Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income77Section 143(3)68Disallowance58Section 4057TDS43Deduction40Section 14731Section 14828Section 14A27Section 143(2)

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2681/AHD/2017[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

12 20. As per sub-clause (g) of section 272A(2), it is the non-furnishing of certificates as provided for under section 203 of the Act, which attracts levy of penalty. Section 203 refers to the furnishing of TDS

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

Showing 1–20 of 832 · Page 1 of 42

...
24
Section 143(1)23
Section 26323

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2678/AHD/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

12 20. As per sub-clause (g) of section 272A(2), it is the non-furnishing of certificates as provided for under section 203 of the Act, which attracts levy of penalty. Section 203 refers to the furnishing of TDS

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2680/AHD/2017[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

12 20. As per sub-clause (g) of section 272A(2), it is the non-furnishing of certificates as provided for under section 203 of the Act, which attracts levy of penalty. Section 203 refers to the furnishing of TDS

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2679/AHD/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

12 20. As per sub-clause (g) of section 272A(2), it is the non-furnishing of certificates as provided for under section 203 of the Act, which attracts levy of penalty. Section 203 refers to the furnishing of TDS

THE DCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. J.P. ISCON LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P.INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITA 220/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Smt. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR & Shri
Section 194Section 194ASection 2(22)(e)Section 201(1)

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. It can’t be covered u/s 194.” 12. It appears that the Ld. CIT(A) has called for a remand report from the ITO(TDS

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. J.P. ISCON LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P. INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 421/AHD/2017[2008-0]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Smt. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR & Shri
Section 194Section 194ASection 2(22)(e)Section 201(1)

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. It can’t be covered u/s 194.” 12. It appears that the Ld. CIT(A) has called for a remand report from the ITO(TDS

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1, AHMEDABAD

ITA 110/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in paragraph 4 of this judgment. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Karnataka are allowed, and the aforesaid judgments are set aside. The ruling of the AAR in Citrix Systems

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1657/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in paragraph 4 of this judgment. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Karnataka are allowed, and the aforesaid judgments are set aside. The ruling of the AAR in Citrix Systems

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2389/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in paragraph 4 of this judgment. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Karnataka are allowed, and the aforesaid judgments are set aside. The ruling of the AAR in Citrix Systems

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2788/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in paragraph 4 of this judgment. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Karnataka are allowed, and the aforesaid judgments are set aside. The ruling of the AAR in Citrix Systems

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 175/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in paragraph 4 of this judgment. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Karnataka are allowed, and the aforesaid judgments are set aside. The ruling of the AAR in Citrix Systems

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 176/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in paragraph 4 of this judgment. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Karnataka are allowed, and the aforesaid judgments are set aside. The ruling of the AAR in Citrix Systems

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2789/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in paragraph 4 of this judgment. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Karnataka are allowed, and the aforesaid judgments are set aside. The ruling of the AAR in Citrix Systems

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2388/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in paragraph 4 of this judgment. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Karnataka are allowed, and the aforesaid judgments are set aside. The ruling of the AAR in Citrix Systems

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1658/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in paragraph 4 of this judgment. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Karnataka are allowed, and the aforesaid judgments are set aside. The ruling of the AAR in Citrix Systems

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

ITA 563/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The answer to this question will apply to all four categories of cases enumerated by us in paragraph 4 of this judgment. The appeals from the impugned judgments of the High Court of Karnataka are allowed, and the aforesaid judgments are set aside. The ruling of the AAR in Citrix Systems

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1740/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P.M. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr. D.R
Section 111JSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 8aSection 8cSection 90Section 91

section 8c 234C) d Total Interest Payable (8a+8b+8c) 8d 9 Aggregate liability (7+8d) 9 10 Taxes Paid a Advance Tax (from Schedule-IT) 11a b TDS (column 7 of Schedle-TDS2) 11b TAXES PAID c TCS (column 7 of schedule-TCS 11c d Self Assessment Tax (from Schedule-IT) 11d e Total Taxes Paid

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 265/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 129Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 244A

12 of the Act Ld CITA holding the assessee not violated the provisions of section 13(1)(d)(i) r.w.s. 11(5) of the Act in case of investment made with Shriram 9.1. Heard the parties, perused the records. The brief facts leading to this case is this that while scrutinizing the financial statement and TDS

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2344/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 129Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 244A

12 of the Act Ld CITA holding the assessee not violated the provisions of section 13(1)(d)(i) r.w.s. 11(5) of the Act in case of investment made with Shriram 9.1. Heard the parties, perused the records. The brief facts leading to this case is this that while scrutinizing the financial statement and TDS

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 806/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 129Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 244A

12 of the Act Ld CITA holding the assessee not violated the provisions of section 13(1)(d)(i) r.w.s. 11(5) of the Act in case of investment made with Shriram 9.1. Heard the parties, perused the records. The brief facts leading to this case is this that while scrutinizing the financial statement and TDS