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.

45 results for “TDS”+ Section 244clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai258Delhi236Bangalore142Karnataka87Cochin71Kolkata48Chennai47Raipur45Ahmedabad45Hyderabad32Jaipur31Indore31Chandigarh20Visakhapatnam17Lucknow16Pune15Cuttack11Rajkot10Amritsar9Dehradun8Nagpur7Agra4Ranchi4Surat4Varanasi4Himachal Pradesh2Telangana2SC2Jodhpur2Guwahati2J&K1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 80I33Addition to Income29Section 271C28TDS27Section 143(3)24Section 272A(2)(g)20Section 244A20Section 14A19Disallowance19Deduction

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)

Section 273B of the I.T. Act and therefore the impugned penalty is bad in law. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order may please be cancelled. 7. On the facts of the case as well as in law, learned CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming the impugned penalty order without appreciating the fact that the demand notice

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

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3

15
Section 143(2)11
Depreciation11

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)

Section 273B of the I.T. Act and therefore the impugned penalty is bad in law. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order may please be cancelled. 7. On the facts of the case as well as in law, learned CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming the impugned penalty order without appreciating the fact that the demand notice

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

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)

Section 273B of the I.T. Act and therefore the impugned penalty is bad in law. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order may please be cancelled. 7. On the facts of the case as well as in law, learned CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming the impugned penalty order without appreciating the fact that the demand notice

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)

Section 273B of the I.T. Act and therefore the impugned penalty is bad in law. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order may please be cancelled. 7. On the facts of the case as well as in law, learned CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming the impugned penalty order without appreciating the fact that the demand notice

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

ITA 2490/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR
Section 143(2)Section 80I

244 taxmann.com 58. Considering the above facts, we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) has rightly adjudicated this issue by keeping in mind the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court and the position of law. We do not find any error in the order of the ld.CIT(A), and the appeal of the Revenue in the Asstt.Year

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1`),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

ITA 2037/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR
Section 143(2)Section 80I

244 taxmann.com 58. Considering the above facts, we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) has rightly adjudicated this issue by keeping in mind the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court and the position of law. We do not find any error in the order of the ld.CIT(A), and the appeal of the Revenue in the Asstt.Year

THE DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

ITA 3233/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR
Section 143(2)Section 80I

244 taxmann.com 58. Considering the above facts, we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) has rightly adjudicated this issue by keeping in mind the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court and the position of law. We do not find any error in the order of the ld.CIT(A), and the appeal of the Revenue in the Asstt.Year

THE ITO,PATAN WARD-3,, MEHSANA vs. M/S. SIDDHI VINAYAK TRANSPORT, MEHSANA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2348/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Bains, CIT (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri M.J. Shah, A.R
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 40

TDS provisions are not applicable to such financial charges, as such payment covered by section 194A(3)(iii)(b) of the Act, being payment made to financial corporation established by or under a Central, State or Provincial Act. Said companies are established under central act as non banking financial company and its lending activity is governed and regulated

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1384/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1384/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Sunjay R.Shah, AR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

section 244A as made by the AO and as per appellant: Particulars As per AO As per Appellant Total income as 18,21.02.564 18,21,02,564 determined in the order under consideration Tax on total income 5,46,30,769 5,46,30,769 Add: Surcharge 54,63,077 54,63,077 Add: Education cess

THE KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 234ASection 244ASection 244A(1)Section 250

TDS, a sum of ₹16,00,00,000/- as advance tax, and a sum of ₹1,90,00,000/- as self-assessment tax, which was paid on 30th July 2011. The return was processed under section 143(1) by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) on 7th August 2012, resulting in a refund of ₹93,20,690/-. Thereafter, the case

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

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 817/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

TDS u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 3086/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

TDS u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 2957/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

TDS u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 773/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

TDS u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 692/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

TDS u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses

KAD STEEL ROLLING MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, TDS, ASHRAM ROAD,

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

ITA 652/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS) initiated proceedings under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) on the assessee based on information received from ITO, Ward 3(2)(9), Ahmedabad. During the assessment of M/s Kad Steel Rolling for A.Y. 2013–14, it was found that the assessee had paid interest of Rs. 4,29,244

NIRMA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1) NOW DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nirma Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-380 009 Circle-3(1)(1), Pan : Aaacn 5350 K Ahmedabad-380009 अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 10.04.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr DR
Section 139Section 140ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 199Section 206CSection 244ASection 244A(1)

TDS or advance tax, and not on self-assessment tax paid. That the assessee accordingly shall be entitled to interest u/s 244A(1)(b) of the Act on the refund of self-assessment tax as well. 10. Our attention was also drawn to paragraph No.12 reflecting the findings of the Tribunal in the said case to the effect that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KANDLA PORT TRUST,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1165/AHD/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Shah, A.R
Section 11Section 244Section 244A

244 is ITA Nos. 1165 & 1166/Ahd/2018 4 . A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2009-10 speaks about interest on refund wherein it is mentioned that “where refund of any amount become due to the assessee under this Act, he shall, subject to the provision of Section, be entitled to receive, in addition to said amount simple interest thereon.” 7. Several High Courts

SHRI PRAFUL D. THAKKAR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2026/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon’Ble&Smt. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं.Ita No. 2026/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Sushilaben Prafulbhai Vs. Ito Thakkar, Ward-2(2) L/H Of Late Prafulbhai D. Ahmedabad. Thakkar, 40, Lad Society, B/H Akash Tower, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad- 380054

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri H.L. Daxini,Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 40

Section 194C contemplates deduction of tax at source in respect of payment of any sum to a ‘contractor’ in terms of the contract. In the case in hand there is no such contract between the assessee and the recipient, rather this of case of outright purchase. Further that it was also argued by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that