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.

494 results for “TDS”+ Section 23clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,969Delhi2,869Bangalore1,561Chennai1,039Kolkata670Ahmedabad494Pune438Hyderabad424Indore373Cochin318Jaipur284Chandigarh257Raipur230Karnataka199Surat140Nagpur108Visakhapatnam99Rajkot98Cuttack87Lucknow72Ranchi51Amritsar48Jodhpur41Dehradun38Jabalpur36Guwahati36Agra34Allahabad32Patna26Telangana26Panaji25SC15Varanasi11Kerala10Calcutta8Uttarakhand2Orissa1Rajasthan1Himachal Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)73Addition to Income61Disallowance58Section 4057Section 14831Section 80I30Deduction29Section 14A28Section 10B27TDS

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)

23. Even considering that the AO had inadvertently mentioned incorrect section for levy of penalty, we find that no penalty was leviable u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act also in the impugned year. We have noted that as per the second proviso to the section no penalty was leviable u/s. 272A(2)(k) if the failure occurred

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

Showing 1–20 of 494 · Page 1 of 25

...
27
Section 6822
Section 14720

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)

23. Even considering that the AO had inadvertently mentioned incorrect section for levy of penalty, we find that no penalty was leviable u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act also in the impugned year. We have noted that as per the second proviso to the section no penalty was leviable u/s. 272A(2)(k) if the failure occurred

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)

23. Even considering that the AO had inadvertently mentioned incorrect section for levy of penalty, we find that no penalty was leviable u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act also in the impugned year. We have noted that as per the second proviso to the section no penalty was leviable u/s. 272A(2)(k) if the failure occurred

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)

23. Even considering that the AO had inadvertently mentioned incorrect section for levy of penalty, we find that no penalty was leviable u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act also in the impugned year. We have noted that as per the second proviso to the section no penalty was leviable u/s. 272A(2)(k) if the failure occurred

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2021/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Wassem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2021/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ (On Behalf Of Amalgamating Cricle-1(3), Vs. 1St Floor, B-109, Company, Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.) Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nr. 801-804, 8Th Floor, Abhishree Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Avenue, Opp. Hanumanji Ahmedabad-380015 Temple, Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce9421H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR
Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 9,16,306/-. The Ld. AO has discussed the issues at Paras 7 to 7.12 on pages 23 to 43 and Ld. CIT(A) has discussed in Paras 19 to 22 on Pages 17 to 24. 8. On identical issue has covered in favour of the assessee in its own case vide ITAT order

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), , AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD.(ON BEHALF OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1939/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Wassem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2021/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ (On Behalf Of Amalgamating Cricle-1(3), Vs. 1St Floor, B-109, Company, Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.) Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nr. 801-804, 8Th Floor, Abhishree Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Avenue, Opp. Hanumanji Ahmedabad-380015 Temple, Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce9421H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR
Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 9,16,306/-. The Ld. AO has discussed the issues at Paras 7 to 7.12 on pages 23 to 43 and Ld. CIT(A) has discussed in Paras 19 to 22 on Pages 17 to 24. 8. On identical issue has covered in favour of the assessee in its own case vide ITAT order

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS SECURITIES LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 2882/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page 106 of paper book to demonstrate that HDFC was also not deducting TDS in respect of KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 2717/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page 106 of paper book to demonstrate that HDFC was also not deducting TDS in respect of KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 914/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page 106 of paper book to demonstrate that HDFC was also not deducting TDS in respect of KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 643/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page 106 of paper book to demonstrate that HDFC was also not deducting TDS in respect of KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHANDWALA INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 932/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page 106 of paper book to demonstrate that HDFC was also not deducting TDS in respect of KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 786/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page 106 of paper book to demonstrate that HDFC was also not deducting TDS in respect of KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 1885/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page 106 of paper book to demonstrate that HDFC was also not deducting TDS in respect of KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 63/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, no TDS was required to be made on services related to security transaction. In this regard, ld. Counsel also referred to page 106 of paper book to demonstrate that HDFC was also not deducting TDS in respect of KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643

ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1817/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1817/Ahd/2016 2012-13 Arvind Lifestyle Brands D.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Arvind Mills Premises, Ahmedabad. Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan No. Aaach7252A 2. 2056/Ahd/2016 2012-13 D.C.I.T, Arvind Lifestyle Circle-1(1)(2), Brands Ltd., Ahmedabad. 3. 2377/Ahd/2017 2013-14 Arvind Lifestyle Brands D.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad. 4. 2618/Ahd/2017 2014-15 Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ito Ward-1(1)(3) Ltd., Ahmedabad

Section 28Section 36Section 37Section 40Section 43B

TDS under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In holding so, we draw support and guidance from the order of Hon’ble Chennai tribunal in case of Dishnet Wireless Limited vs. DCIT in ITA No. 320 to 329/Mds/2014 reported in 60 taxmann.com 329 where tribunal held as under: 23

ASIAN MILLS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1,,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1397/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1397/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T., 104, Sakar Iii, Vs. Range-1, Opp. Old High Court, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aabca8236G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1531/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T., Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 104, Sakar Iii, Ahmedabad. Opp. Old High Court, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aabca8236G

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 194Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40Section 6Section 7

TDS. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the foregoing discussion we find that the discount offered by the assessee to its parties has been disallowed on account of 2 reasons. Firstly, these parties own their own go-down in Mumbai and therefore there was no occasion/reason

THE DCIT,TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2216/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2216/Ahd/2013 2007-08 Dcit Nirma Limited Tds Circle, Nirma House, Ashram Ahmedabad Road, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan No. Aaacn5350K Revenue By : Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. Dr. Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. With Shri Himanshu Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2021 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2007-08 Which Is Arising From The Order Of The Cit(A)-Xxi, Ahmedabad Dated 13.06.2013, In The Proceedings Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2007-08 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. with Shri Himanshu Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 193Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS and interest under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act amounting to Rs. 12,23,687/- and 96,71,464/- respectively

OM YASH PROJECTS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 40/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.40/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2023-24 Om Yash Projects Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Office No. 1113, Aaron Spectra, बनाम/ Ward-3(1)(1), V/S. Rajpath Rangoli Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aacco4734C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kaushik Kejriwal & Ms. Kushboo Shah, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Additional / Joint From The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Dated 26.11.2024, In Connection With The Intimation Under Section 143(1) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2023-24, Issued By The Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bangalore, Dated 09.01.2024. Om Yash Projects Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik Kejriwal & MsFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

section 143(1) and restricted the TDS credit to Rs. 2,26,56,755/-, disallowing Rs. 20,25,542/- by proportionately reducing the TDS claim to match the turnover reported in the books. As a result, instead of processing a refund of Rs. 1,79,440/-, CPC raised a tax demand of Rs. 21,23

CRYSTAL QUINONE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1420/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1420/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Crystal Quinone Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cir-1(1)(2), Opp. Old Excise Chawky, Vs. Ahmedabad S.M. Road, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Santosh Karnani, Sr. DR
Section 145ASection 14ASection 194CSection 40

TDS merely on the collection of PAN from the transport contractors. As such the assessee after the collection of PAN from the transport contractors was to furnish the necessary details of such transport contractors to the prescribed Income-Tax-Authority within the prescribed time as per the provision of sub section 7 of the section 194C

G. B. BUILDERS, ,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT-CPC(TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Due Date On 24-11-2014, But Inadvertently Committed An Error Therein Of Depositing This Tds Using Pan Of The Seller Instead Of Pan Of The Appellant (As The Buyer)

For Appellant: Shri Hirak Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 194Section 194ISection 200Section 200ASection 234E

23,775 first on 24-11-2014 i.e. before date of I.T.A No. 626/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. 3 G.B. Builders vs. ACIT-CPC(TDS) sale and again redeposited the same amount of TDS (together with interest of Rs.46,977) on 16-12-2015 with PAN of the appellant as a buyer for filing amended Form No. 26QB