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.

39 results for “TDS”+ Section 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai545Delhi477Bangalore312Kolkata123Chennai113Hyderabad111Jaipur108Raipur46Chandigarh42Ahmedabad39Karnataka37Visakhapatnam28Rajkot24Lucknow23Pune22Indore21Jodhpur18Agra16Panaji16Surat16Nagpur14Guwahati13Patna12Cochin8Ranchi5Varanasi4SC3Allahabad3Jabalpur2Telangana2Dehradun2Orissa1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 271C39Addition to Income27Section 272A(2)(g)20Survey u/s 133A19Section 14817Disallowance17Section 133A16Section 201(1)15Penalty14Section 143(3)

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)

TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

13
TDS13
Section 25011
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)

TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee

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)

TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee

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)

TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee

HUBTOWN BUS TERMINAL (AHMEDABAD) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE(TDS), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 732/AHD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 194Section 201

133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was carried out on 07.08.2015 at the business premises of the assessee for verification of TDS compliance. During the course of survey, it was noticed that the assessee had deducted TDS aggregating to ₹2,89,37,379/- for the financial year 2014-15 under various sections

JT. CIT(OSD), TDS-CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 142/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri James KurianFor Respondent: 04/05/2022
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201(1)Section 260A

TDS Circle, Ahmedabad, challenging the orders passed by the CIT (Appeals), Ahmedabad dated 14.3.2017, 20.3.2017 and 24.3.2017 in the assessment proceedings under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the said Act, and ITA Nos.1269/Ahd/2017, 1270/Ahd/2017, 1271/Ahd/2017 were filed by the respondent Assessee against the said three orders, before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals

JT. CIT(OSD), TDS-CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 143/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri James KurianFor Respondent: 04/05/2022
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201(1)Section 260A

TDS Circle, Ahmedabad, challenging the orders passed by the CIT (Appeals), Ahmedabad dated 14.3.2017, 20.3.2017 and 24.3.2017 in the assessment proceedings under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the said Act, and ITA Nos.1269/Ahd/2017, 1270/Ahd/2017, 1271/Ahd/2017 were filed by the respondent Assessee against the said three orders, before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals

JT. CIT(OSD), TDS-CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 141/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri James KurianFor Respondent: 04/05/2022
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201(1)Section 260A

TDS Circle, Ahmedabad, challenging the orders passed by the CIT (Appeals), Ahmedabad dated 14.3.2017, 20.3.2017 and 24.3.2017 in the assessment proceedings under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the said Act, and ITA Nos.1269/Ahd/2017, 1270/Ahd/2017, 1271/Ahd/2017 were filed by the respondent Assessee against the said three orders, before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals

SAKARIYA METAL ROLLING MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(10), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 34/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 34/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2015-2016 Sakariya Metal Rolling Mills, I.T.O., 257, Gujrat Vapraj Mahamandal, Vs. Ward-3(3)(10), Vasahat, S.P. Ring Road, Ahmedabad. Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415. Pan: Aadfs3443A

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.D.R
Section 133ASection 143Section 68

section 133A of the Act wherein the word MARA was recorded which is a Gujarati word and its translation in English stands as MY. Based on this, the learned AR contended that the impugned piece of document belongs to the partner of the firm. We are not again convinced with the argument of the learned AR for the assessee

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1751/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions of respective DTAA's. ( Page166 of the appellate order). 8.1 In any case

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2293/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions of respective DTAA's. ( Page166 of the appellate order). 8.1 In any case

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3492/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions of respective DTAA's. ( Page166 of the appellate order). 8.1 In any case

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2114/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions of respective DTAA's. ( Page166 of the appellate order). 8.1 In any case

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2276/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions of respective DTAA's. ( Page166 of the appellate order). 8.1 In any case

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3470/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions of respective DTAA's. ( Page166 of the appellate order). 8.1 In any case

M/S. GANESH ENTERPRISE.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2308/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2308/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 M/S Ganesh Enterprise, Addl.C.I.T., 205, Shubh House, Vs. Tds, 77, Swastik Soc. Opp. C.G. Road, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Jimit Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 133ASection 194ASection 201(1)Section 271C

section 133A of the Act at the business premises of the assessee on 15 July 2015 wherein it was found that the assessee has claimed interest expenses for Rs. 22,23,512.00 only for the year under consideration after deducting the TDS

RAVI PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGIES LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1199/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

133A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the TDS Range at the premises of the Company on 18.02.2016 wherein the Revenue observed that TDS deducted from various payments was not deposited with the Department. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (ITO, TDS) passed order under Section

TULSI REALITY,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 134/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.134/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tulsi Reality The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ G5 Anand Deep Complex Vadodara – 390 007 V/S. Gotri Road (Gujarat) Gotri, Vadodara – 390 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafft 8908 B (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit") Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 12.12.2019. Tulsi Reality Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 37(1)

Section 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 30.08.2016. During the survey, the assessee admitted an undisclosed income of Rs.50,10,000/- and stated that this amount represented receipts related to business activities. The admitted income was subsequently included in the return of income and reflected in the financial statements of the assessee

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 576/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69C

TDS non-compliance. This is consistent with judicial principles that when profit is computed based on estimation, it covers all aspects of the business, including potential violations. 13.2. We also find that the 12% Net Profit Rate (NPR) applied by the CIT(A) is reasonable, given the nature of the case. The assessee was found to have engaged in unaccounted

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITA 569/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69C

TDS non-compliance. This is consistent with judicial principles that when profit is computed based on estimation, it covers all aspects of the business, including potential violations. 13.2. We also find that the 12% Net Profit Rate (NPR) applied by the CIT(A) is reasonable, given the nature of the case. The assessee was found to have engaged in unaccounted