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.

48 results for “TDS”+ Section 253clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai502Delhi454Chennai169Bangalore119Karnataka90Jaipur64Chandigarh57Indore56Kolkata56Ahmedabad48Pune47Cochin42Raipur31Lucknow29Nagpur26Jodhpur15Surat14Rajkot14Panaji13Visakhapatnam11Amritsar11Cuttack11Hyderabad11Jabalpur8Guwahati6Patna5Varanasi5Allahabad4Telangana4Agra2Dehradun2SC2Calcutta1J&K1

Key Topics

Addition to Income36Section 80I32Section 14829Disallowance27Section 143(3)21Section 271(1)(c)21Section 80P(2)(d)18Section 2(22)(e)17Penalty15Natural Justice

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. J.P. ISCON LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P. INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 421/AHD/2017[2008-0]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Smt. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR & Shri
Section 194Section 194ASection 2(22)(e)Section 201(1)

253 of 2015. After considering the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Impact Containers Private Limited & ors rendered in I TA No. 114 of 2012 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Pvt Lt d reported in 340 ITR 14 (Del) and on interpreting Section

THE DCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. J.P. ISCON LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P.INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., AHMEDABAD

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3

15
Section 14714
Section 25012
ITA 220/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Smt. Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR & Shri
Section 194Section 194ASection 2(22)(e)Section 201(1)

253 of 2015. After considering the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Impact Containers Private Limited & ors rendered in I TA No. 114 of 2012 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankitech Pvt Lt d reported in 340 ITR 14 (Del) and on interpreting Section

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(s)/ Rules of the IT Act 1 Rule 37BA Erroneous/Proportionate On the facts and circumstances of the case Disallowance of TDS Credit as well as law on the matter, the CIT(A) has erred in proportionately reducing the TDS credit based on turnover discrepancies between books of accounts and Form 26AS, even though the assessee has claimed TDS correctly

DEEP MULTIPLEX PVT. LTD.,BARODA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) (1), BARODA

In the results, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1719/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.1719/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Deep Muliplex P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.1(1)(4) 9, Arunoday Society Baroda. Vs 2, Mangaljyot Apartment Alkapuri Baroda Pan : Aabck 4719 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression “sufficient cause” employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI YAGNESH DAYABHAI VYAS, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1561/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 4. The brief facts leading to the issue is this the assessee had made interest payment to Citi Finance for Rs. 7,96,995/- and Rs. 27,54,253/- to Gruh Finance, on which no TDS

SALIM VALIMOHAMAND MEMAN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2326/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Varis V. Isani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR
Section 249Section 249(2)Section 253Section 3Section 5

TDS Circle Ahmedabad. 4, Sahajanad Society Vs Danilimda Ahmedabad. PAN : ACBPM 7325 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Varis V. Isani, AR Revenue by : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15/07/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 26/07/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1451/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

253, read with section 69A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal Appealable orders [Aggrieved party Assessee, a builder, received on money while selling properties constructed by it - Assessing Officer taxed entire on money received by assessee - Assessee contended before Tribunal that not entire on money received but only profit element could be taxed in its hands - Tribunal substantially

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1563/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

253, read with section 69A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal Appealable orders [Aggrieved party Assessee, a builder, received on money while selling properties constructed by it - Assessing Officer taxed entire on money received by assessee - Assessee contended before Tribunal that not entire on money received but only profit element could be taxed in its hands - Tribunal substantially

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1450/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

253, read with section 69A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal Appealable orders [Aggrieved party Assessee, a builder, received on money while selling properties constructed by it - Assessing Officer taxed entire on money received by assessee - Assessee contended before Tribunal that not entire on money received but only profit element could be taxed in its hands - Tribunal substantially

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1562/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

253, read with section 69A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal Appealable orders [Aggrieved party Assessee, a builder, received on money while selling properties constructed by it - Assessing Officer taxed entire on money received by assessee - Assessee contended before Tribunal that not entire on money received but only profit element could be taxed in its hands - Tribunal substantially

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1864/AHD/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi with Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression “sufficient cause” employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 225/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi with Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression “sufficient cause” employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

STERLING ADDLIFE INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 229/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

TDS Circle Ahmedabad. Sterling Hospital Building Vs Off Gurukul Road, Memnagar Ahmedabad 380 052. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri A.C. Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15/07/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 26/07/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee

THE DCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHUKAN BUILDERS,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1697/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar with SmtFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha CIT DR with Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). AY: 2010-11 ITA No. 1518/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11(Assessee’s Appeal):- The first issue raised by the assessee is that the Learned CIT(A) erred in 2. confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.62,51,247/- as bogus purchases. 3. The facts

SHUKAN BUILDERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT(OSD), CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1518/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar with SmtFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha CIT DR with Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). AY: 2010-11 ITA No. 1518/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11(Assessee’s Appeal):- The first issue raised by the assessee is that the Learned CIT(A) erred in 2. confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.62,51,247/- as bogus purchases. 3. The facts

S.N. INFRASPACE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2537/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Karan Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.D.R
Section 37Section 37(1)

TDS as per Section 194C of the Act. From the bill produced, it is seen that event was organized at the property to be sold which is known as "Venus Atlantis". The premises was decorated with special lighting effects and an attractive ambience was generated to have a great look to attract the people to the property. In my view

SANDEEPKUMAR MITHULAL MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(10), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1002/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1002/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sandeepkumar Mithulal Mehta, I.T.O., 7, Rajasthan Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(10), Opp. Meghdoot Petrol Pump, Ahmedabad. Sahibaug, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Goyal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana Sr. DR
Section 5

253 ITR 798 held as under: "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side

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

253 ITR 749) for the proposition that for the purpose\nof section 32, registration in the assessee's own name is not mandatory if\nbeneficial ownership and business use are established.\n80.\nOn this issue, the learned AR placed reliance on the findings of the\nlearned CIT(A), whereas the learned DR supported the order of the\nAssessing Officer

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

NARENDRASINH PRAVINSINH JADEJA,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 697/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 282ASection 44ASection 68

TDS is not deducted for labour payment is not valid ground because for every labour payment provisions of Section 194C are not applicable. The Ld. AR further submitted that how the Assessing Officer arrived at the figure of Rs. 28,84,211/- is not enumerated in assessment order. The Ld. AR submitted that there is not requirement to show acceptance