Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

45 results for “TDS”+ Section 164(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai366 Delhi275 Bangalore124 Karnataka86 Chandigarh77 Chennai67 Kolkata54 Jaipur49 Ahmedabad45 Raipur35 Cochin34 Pune25 Lucknow23 Hyderabad22 Visakhapatnam21 Indore19 Jodhpur13 Ranchi11 Cuttack10 Rajkot8 Patna7 Surat7 Nagpur6 Agra5 SC3 Amritsar2 Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)56 Section 14856 Addition to Income34 Section 14721 Section 14A18 Section 13218 Section 132(4)18 Search & Seizure18 Section 2(15)16 Section 68

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

Section 164(1) of the Act. Further it is submitted that the TDS deducted should be allowed as credit against

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3

14

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

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

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

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 805/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

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

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

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

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

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

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

ITA 529/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: \nMs. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: \nShri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

164 ITR 102), and the\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in Amrit Lal & Co. (108 ITR 719) and Ciba\nDyes Ltd. v. CIT (25 ITR 102), the Assessing Officer concluded that the mere\nproduction of vouchers was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof\nunder section 37(1) of the Act, particularly when the genuineness of\nexpenditure was in doubt

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

ITA 477/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

TDS, and late payment of taxes aggregating to Rs. 34,56,637/-, which were directly related to specific assets or statutory liabilities and had no nexus with earning exempt income. The CIT(A) accepted this contention and directed that such interest should be excluded from the computation under Rule 8D(2)(ii). On re-computation, the interest disallowance under Rule

SHRI DINESH MILLS LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 781/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR &

Section 10Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 14ASection 154ASection 194HSection 40(1)(ia)

TDS. 8. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who deleted the addition made by the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 9. Both the learned DR and the AR before us relied on the order of the authorities below as favourable to them

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 446/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

Section 32 of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned by an assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession. Under this section, for getting depreciation, the following two conditions should be satisfied: (i) The asset in question should be owned by the assessee; and (ii) The asset should

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 318/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

Section 32 of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned by an assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession. Under this section, for getting depreciation, the following two conditions should be satisfied: (i) The asset in question should be owned by the assessee; and (ii) The asset should

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 445/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

Section 32 of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned by an assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession. Under this section, for getting depreciation, the following two conditions should be satisfied: (i) The asset in question should be owned by the assessee; and (ii) The asset should

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 776/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254

section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1154/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

164 taxmann.com 663 (Bombay) (v) Ravindra Reddy Katamreddy vs. DCIT,(2024) 159 taxmann.com 5 (Bombay) (vi) Gigantic Mercantile P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2024) 165 taxmann.com 646 (Bombay) (ii) The second challenge to the reopening was on the ground that the reopening for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 was time barred in as much as u/s.149

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1153/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

164 taxmann.com 663 (Bombay) (v) Ravindra Reddy Katamreddy vs. DCIT,(2024) 159 taxmann.com 5 (Bombay) (vi) Gigantic Mercantile P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2024) 165 taxmann.com 646 (Bombay) (ii) The second challenge to the reopening was on the ground that the reopening for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 was time barred in as much as u/s.149

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1142/AHD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

164 taxmann.com 663 (Bombay) (v) Ravindra Reddy Katamreddy vs. DCIT,(2024) 159 taxmann.com 5 (Bombay) (vi) Gigantic Mercantile P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2024) 165 taxmann.com 646 (Bombay) (ii) The second challenge to the reopening was on the ground that the reopening for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 was time barred in as much as u/s.149

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1152/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

164 taxmann.com 663 (Bombay) (v) Ravindra Reddy Katamreddy vs. DCIT,(2024) 159 taxmann.com 5 (Bombay) (vi) Gigantic Mercantile P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2024) 165 taxmann.com 646 (Bombay) (ii) The second challenge to the reopening was on the ground that the reopening for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 was time barred in as much as u/s.149

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1151/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

164 taxmann.com 663 (Bombay) (v) Ravindra Reddy Katamreddy vs. DCIT,(2024) 159 taxmann.com 5 (Bombay) (vi) Gigantic Mercantile P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2024) 165 taxmann.com 646 (Bombay) (ii) The second challenge to the reopening was on the ground that the reopening for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 was time barred in as much as u/s.149

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1139/AHD/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

164 taxmann.com 663 (Bombay) (v) Ravindra Reddy Katamreddy vs. DCIT,(2024) 159 taxmann.com 5 (Bombay) (vi) Gigantic Mercantile P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2024) 165 taxmann.com 646 (Bombay) (ii) The second challenge to the reopening was on the ground that the reopening for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 was time barred in as much as u/s.149

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC (1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1145/AHD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

164 taxmann.com 663 (Bombay) (v) Ravindra Reddy Katamreddy vs. DCIT,(2024) 159 taxmann.com 5 (Bombay) (vi) Gigantic Mercantile P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2024) 165 taxmann.com 646 (Bombay) (ii) The second challenge to the reopening was on the ground that the reopening for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 was time barred in as much as u/s.149

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHEMEDABAD

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

ITA 1140/AHD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

164 taxmann.com 663 (Bombay) (v) Ravindra Reddy Katamreddy vs. DCIT,(2024) 159 taxmann.com 5 (Bombay) (vi) Gigantic Mercantile P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2024) 165 taxmann.com 646 (Bombay) (ii) The second challenge to the reopening was on the ground that the reopening for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 was time barred in as much as u/s.149