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.

116 results for “TDS”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,053Delhi768Bangalore347Kolkata287Chennai193Karnataka117Ahmedabad116Jaipur110Raipur94Cochin61Indore61Pune54Surat53Hyderabad45Chandigarh42Visakhapatnam38Lucknow31Nagpur20Agra17Rajkot15Patna14Guwahati12Amritsar10Dehradun9Ranchi6Cuttack5Panaji4Jabalpur3Telangana3Varanasi2SC2Jodhpur2Kerala1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Addition to Income84Section 143(3)79Disallowance58Section 6844TDS41Section 14833Section 153A29Section 133(6)28Section 14724Section 14A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. RUDRA GLOBAL INFRA PRODUCTS LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 1163/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

section 133(6) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A), after an elaborate examination of facts and documentary evidence, deleted the addition by recording detailed factual findings as under:- “6.1 The only substantial ground

ITO WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VALLEY COMTRADE PVT LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS JHAWAR COMTRADE PVT. LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

Showing 1–20 of 116 · Page 1 of 6

24
Deduction24
Depreciation24

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2034/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT. D.R with Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.D.R
Section 13(1)(d)Section 68

section 133(6) was duly complied with where Seema Holding confirmed the investment made in assessee share capital which was further confirmed by furnishing the notarized affidavit. From the submission of the assessee, we also find that the investor company for the year under consideration has shown interest income of Rs. 86,89,155/- on which TDS

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1278/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

133(6) of the Act. it is also pertinent to observe that quantum of income mentioned in the return of income cannot be criteria to judge creditworthiness of share applicants. In the case of M/s.Ami Industries (India) P.Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also considered this aspect. In that case also, existence of share applicants

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1392/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

133(6) of the Act. it is also pertinent to observe that quantum of income mentioned in the return of income cannot be criteria to judge creditworthiness of share applicants. In the case of M/s.Ami Industries (India) P.Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also considered this aspect. In that case also, existence of share applicants

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1277/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

133(6) of the Act. it is also pertinent to observe that quantum of income mentioned in the return of income cannot be criteria to judge creditworthiness of share applicants. In the case of M/s.Ami Industries (India) P.Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also considered this aspect. In that case also, existence of share applicants

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SARAS SPICES & FOOD PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 620/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 478/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. I.T.O., Ltd., Vs. Ward-4(1)(3), A/3, 4Th Floor, Ahmedabad. Casela Tower,, Opp. Iscon Mandir, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380015

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)(x)Section 68

133(6) and some of the parties have submitted required detail. In the given facts and circumstances, the assessee duly discharged the primary onus cast under section 68 of the Act. It was the duty of the AO to make independent enquiries based on primary document to bring contrary materials. But the AO failed to make enquiries and bring

SHREE SARAS SPICES & FOODS P. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 478/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 478/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. I.T.O., Ltd., Vs. Ward-4(1)(3), A/3, 4Th Floor, Ahmedabad. Casela Tower,, Opp. Iscon Mandir, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380015

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)(x)Section 68

133(6) and some of the parties have submitted required detail. In the given facts and circumstances, the assessee duly discharged the primary onus cast under section 68 of the Act. It was the duty of the AO to make independent enquiries based on primary document to bring contrary materials. But the AO failed to make enquiries and bring

AAKASH PURSHOTTAMBHAI VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, TDS-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1064/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 194ISection 194JSection 201(1)

133/- was made on 30.08.2017 to various persons on which no TDS under Section 194IA of the Act was made. In addition, the assessee had made payment of Audit Fee of Rs.39,000/- on 31.03.2018 to Mukund and Rohit which was liable to TDS @ 10% under Section 194J of the Act but no TDS was made by the assessee

NILESH AMRITLAL PARIKH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1)(PREVIOUSLY ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 755/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Neeta Ladha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section 133(6), it does not automatically render the transaction non-genuine. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that TDS

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(2), (FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 85/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

TDS credit of Rs. 42,830/- while calculating demand of Rs. 2,32,474/-. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the learned AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2)(FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 87/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

TDS credit of Rs. 42,830/- while calculating demand of Rs. 2,32,474/-. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the learned AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case

ITO, WARD - 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE GAYATRI COTTEX ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 688/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Bavishi, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 57

Section 133(6) notices during the assessment proceedings. (ii) the assessee failed to produce primary evidence, such as invoices, delivery challans, and payment proofs, to establish the genuineness of the purchases. (iii) Mere furnishing of ledger confirmations at the appellate stage cannot replace the requirement of primary documentary evidence. Further, TDS

IRM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1590/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1590/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Irm Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Irm House, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Off. C.G Raod, Circle 2(1)(1), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaci3678M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, SR-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 194HSection 194J

133(6)) in the case of Shri Hemant Srivastava, an employee of the amalgamated company, showing that Rs. 10,12,600/- was deposited into the bank account of M/s Green Channel Private Limited from the employee’s personal account, suggesting possible unaccounted cash acceptance. 3. Based on the above inputs, the AO formed a belief that income to the extent

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2557/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R
Section 40ASection 68

133(6) of the Act. But the AO has not done so. A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 28 53.3 The assessee has been making sales to the sister concern since many years but in none of the previous year, any doubt was raised by the revenue. Therefore, based on the principle of consistency the transaction for the sales made

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1447/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R
Section 40ASection 68

133(6) of the Act. But the AO has not done so. A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 28 53.3 The assessee has been making sales to the sister concern since many years but in none of the previous year, any doubt was raised by the revenue. Therefore, based on the principle of consistency the transaction for the sales made

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1320/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R
Section 40ASection 68

133(6) of the Act. But the AO has not done so. A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 28 53.3 The assessee has been making sales to the sister concern since many years but in none of the previous year, any doubt was raised by the revenue. Therefore, based on the principle of consistency the transaction for the sales made

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 187/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R
Section 40ASection 68

133(6) of the Act. But the AO has not done so. A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 28 53.3 The assessee has been making sales to the sister concern since many years but in none of the previous year, any doubt was raised by the revenue. Therefore, based on the principle of consistency the transaction for the sales made

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. LEELA NEWS NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1714/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

section 133(6) of the Act was issued to M/s VRR Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., which were duly responded by it. The identity of the parties could not be, therefore disputed. The entire amount advanced by the M/s VRR Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. was through banking channels, this fact has been made part of the assessment order

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2)(1) AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD vs. RAMANBHAI JAGABHAI BHARWAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1834/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri
Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 69A

TDS was duly deducted by Agarwal Enterprise. Documentary proof such as ledgers, ITRs of lenders, bank statements, and confirmations were submitted by the assessee to substantiate both the ownership and source of the properties ITO vs. Ramanbhai Jagabhai Bharwad Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4– sold, as well as the sources of funds. Despite this, the AO disregarded all these submissions

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. CREDO REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD(NOW AS M/S. CSBPROJECT PVT. LTD), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 512/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16
Section 194I

TDS issue, the Tribunal held them to be genuine expenses and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(2)", "142(1)", "133(6