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.

503 results for “TDS”+ Section 28(2)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,666 Mumbai2,637 Bangalore1,292 Chennai870 Kolkata572 Hyderabad527 Ahmedabad503 Pune367 Chandigarh303 Jaipur288 Indore266 Cochin256 Raipur211 Karnataka201 Patna198 Visakhapatnam136 Cuttack112 Rajkot106 Surat91 Nagpur85 Lucknow81 Amritsar56 Ranchi42 Dehradun41 Guwahati35 Jodhpur35 Agra33 Allahabad21 Telangana20 Panaji13 SC12 Kerala11 Jabalpur10 Calcutta10 Varanasi7 Rajasthan3 Uttarakhand2 Orissa2 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)76 Section 80I76 Addition to Income63 Disallowance57 Section 4051 Deduction44 Section 80P(2)(d)43 Section 26339 Section 143(2)30 TDS

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

Showing 1–20 of 503 · Page 1 of 26

...

29

28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted by the first appellate authority in the appeal preferred by the assessee

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

28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted by the first appellate authority in the appeal preferred by the assessee

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

28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted by the first appellate authority in the appeal preferred by the assessee

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

28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted by the first appellate authority in the appeal preferred by the assessee

JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1225/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

28,570/- for the reason supra in this order. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.” 6.7 During the year, the Assessing Officer made disallowance on account of interest expenses of Rs.7,74,777/- (page No. 37 of Assessment Order). Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09 (supra

RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1184/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

28,570/- for the reason supra in this order. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.” 6.7 During the year, the Assessing Officer made disallowance on account of interest expenses of Rs.7,74,777/- (page No. 37 of Assessment Order). Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09 (supra

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 271H of the Act after 1.7.2012. Both the parties are directed to come up before us with their contentions on this observation regarding the position of law on the issue noted by us above. The impugned appeals are accordingly fixed for seeking the above clarification on 13th February, 2025. 26. Thereafter when the matter was ultimately heard on 25th

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 271H of the Act after 1.7.2012. Both the parties are directed to come up before us with their contentions on this observation regarding the position of law on the issue noted by us above. The impugned appeals are accordingly fixed for seeking the above clarification on 13th February, 2025. 26. Thereafter when the matter was ultimately heard on 25th

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)

section 271H of the Act after 1.7.2012. Both the parties are directed to come up before us with their contentions on this observation regarding the position of law on the issue noted by us above. The impugned appeals are accordingly fixed for seeking the above clarification on 13th February, 2025. 26. Thereafter when the matter was ultimately heard on 25th

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 271H of the Act after 1.7.2012. Both the parties are directed to come up before us with their contentions on this observation regarding the position of law on the issue noted by us above. The impugned appeals are accordingly fixed for seeking the above clarification on 13th February, 2025. 26. Thereafter when the matter was ultimately heard on 25th

SABRI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

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

ITA 1019/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1019/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम/ A/2/236, Gidc, Nandesari, Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Baroda – 391 340. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 9406 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 04/10/2018

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(2)

28. The assessee during the year has incurred interest expenses of Rs.81,440/- without deducting the TDS, therefore, the same was Sabri Chemicals Pvt.Ltd vs. ACIT A.Y. 2012-13 disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 29. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. MARKET CREATORS LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 41/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 2Section 201(1)Section 40

TDS provisions. 7. In parity with view taken in Co-ordinate Bench, we hold that assessee company was not liable for deduction of tax u/s. 194H or 194J on payment of brokerage to the sub-brokers and accordingly we hold that no disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) was called for. Thus, this ground of Revenue is dismissed

DHANLAXMI CREDIT CO. OP. SOCIETY LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, PATAN

In the result, Ground Number 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1870/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V K Mangla, Sr. DR

Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

28. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the controversy arising in these tax appeals, we are of the opinion that the controversy sought to be canvassed with regard to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in case of Katlary Kariyana

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

28]” 30 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 75.1 In view of the above, once it has been held that loss does not relate to the activity of sale/purchase of shares by the assessee for itself, then the provisions of explanation to Section 73 of the Act cannot

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

28]” 30 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 75.1 In view of the above, once it has been held that loss does not relate to the activity of sale/purchase of shares by the assessee for itself, then the provisions of explanation to Section 73 of the Act cannot

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

28]” 30 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 75.1 In view of the above, once it has been held that loss does not relate to the activity of sale/purchase of shares by the assessee for itself, then the provisions of explanation to Section 73 of the Act cannot

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 448/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), Virtual 400 ITR 409 and 370 ITR 547 (SC). The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 442/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), Virtual 400 ITR 409 and 370 ITR 547 (SC). The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 443/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), Virtual 400 ITR 409 and 370 ITR 547 (SC). The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 447/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), Virtual 400 ITR 409 and 370 ITR 547 (SC). The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision