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.

3 results for “TDS”+ Section 167B(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai12Ahmedabad3Cuttack3Lucknow2Hyderabad2Pune2Visakhapatnam1SC1Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 167B8Section 143(1)8Section 268Section 164(1)3TDS3Section 862Section 67A2Section 167B(2)2

NAM GROUP ASLALI,AHMEDABAD vs. AO,CPC, BANGALORE- PRESENT ITO. WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1610/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1610/Ahd/2024 & 1611/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively Nam Group Aslali The Ao, Cpc बनाम/ 172/1, Premchand House Bangalore - V/S. Old High Court Way Present Ito Ashram Road Ward-3(1)(1) Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaaan 0551 C (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals, Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2022-23 & 2023-24 & Arise From The Orders Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit-10 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] In Upholding The Levy Of Surcharge At The Maximum Marginal Rate Under Section 167B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Levy Of Surcharge Was Determined Pursuant To Intimations Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Since The Facts & Grounds Of Appeal For Both Years Are Identical

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 167BSection 167B(2)Section 26
Section 67A
Section 86

TDS being made in the name of Co- ownership in which shares of co-owners are specific. 3. He has erred in law and on facts in applying provision of section 86 and section 67A to the facts of the co-ownership having rental income to be assessed as per section 26 of the Income

NAM GROUP ASLALI,AHMEDABAD vs. AO, CPC, BANGALORE-PRESENT -THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1611/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1610/Ahd/2024 & 1611/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively Nam Group Aslali The Ao, Cpc बनाम/ 172/1, Premchand House Bangalore - V/S. Old High Court Way Present Ito Ashram Road Ward-3(1)(1) Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaaan 0551 C (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals, Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2022-23 & 2023-24 & Arise From The Orders Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit-10 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] In Upholding The Levy Of Surcharge At The Maximum Marginal Rate Under Section 167B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Levy Of Surcharge Was Determined Pursuant To Intimations Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Since The Facts & Grounds Of Appeal For Both Years Are Identical

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 167BSection 167B(2)Section 26Section 67ASection 86

TDS being made in the name of Co- ownership in which shares of co-owners are specific. 3. He has erred in law and on facts in applying provision of section 86 and section 67A to the facts of the co-ownership having rental income to be assessed as per section 26 of the Income

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

TDS credit of Rs.68,042/- and penalty of Rs.5000/- and interest of Rs.1430/- was paid. But, in response to the ITR-5, the appellant was taxed at MMR without giving effect of deduction under Chapter-VIA. 4.5 It is the contention of the appellant that the appellant trust is eligible to pay tax as per the second proviso to section