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.

437 results for “TDS”+ Section 36(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,228 Delhi2,145 Bangalore1,142 Chennai832 Kolkata563 Ahmedabad437 Hyderabad329 Indore249 Cochin228 Jaipur218 Chandigarh214 Karnataka168 Pune161 Raipur158 Visakhapatnam84 Surat83 Rajkot81 Lucknow70 Cuttack68 Nagpur56 Ranchi42 Jabalpur34 Amritsar32 Guwahati30 Agra28 Dehradun24 Jodhpur23 Telangana18 Allahabad17 Panaji17 Varanasi13 Patna12 SC10 Kerala7 Himachal Pradesh6 Rajasthan5 Uttarakhand2 Calcutta2 J&K1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)83 Disallowance68 Addition to Income66 Section 4055 Section 80I33 Deduction31 Section 10B27 Section 14825 Section 6823 Section 143(2)

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

Showing 1–20 of 437 · Page 1 of 22

...

23

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

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

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

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

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

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

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

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

36–  It was also submitted that if Baddi unit should bear the cost of royalty, in that scenario entire selling and distribution expenses incurred by them are required to be excluded while computing the commercial profits of the Baddi unit as the same is the responsibility of the brand owner.  It is submitted that that the profit to turnover

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

36–  It was also submitted that if Baddi unit should bear the cost of royalty, in that scenario entire selling and distribution expenses incurred by them are required to be excluded while computing the commercial profits of the Baddi unit as the same is the responsibility of the brand owner.  It is submitted that that the profit to turnover

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 269SSection 36(1)Section 40Section 68

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in issuing a notice u/s 143(2

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

36(2) are not satisfied in the assessee’s case. (7) That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts by allowing the contention of assessee for verification of part disallowance of Rs. 17,02,013/- made by the AO as disallowance of Saudafer Los by ignoring the fact that whole Saudafer Loss claimed

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

36(2) are not satisfied in the assessee’s case. (7) That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts by allowing the contention of assessee for verification of part disallowance of Rs. 17,02,013/- made by the AO as disallowance of Saudafer Los by ignoring the fact that whole Saudafer Loss claimed

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

36(2) are not satisfied in the assessee’s case. (7) That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts by allowing the contention of assessee for verification of part disallowance of Rs. 17,02,013/- made by the AO as disallowance of Saudafer Los by ignoring the fact that whole Saudafer Loss claimed

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 146/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. The order passed by the ld.CIT(A) on this issue is therefore set aside and ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 30. Ground No.3 and 4 are raised by the assessee relating to the issue of addition made to the income of the assessee on account of mismatch in the income reported

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 144/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. The order passed by the ld.CIT(A) on this issue is therefore set aside and ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 30. Ground No.3 and 4 are raised by the assessee relating to the issue of addition made to the income of the assessee on account of mismatch in the income reported

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 145/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. The order passed by the ld.CIT(A) on this issue is therefore set aside and ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 30. Ground No.3 and 4 are raised by the assessee relating to the issue of addition made to the income of the assessee on account of mismatch in the income reported

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 36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs.42.20 lacs was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 5.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 7.89 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS

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 36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs.42.20 lacs was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 5.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 7.89 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS

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 36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs.42.20 lacs was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 5.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 7.89 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS

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 36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs.42.20 lacs was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 5.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 7.89 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS

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 36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs.42.20 lacs was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 5.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 7.89 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS

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 36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs.42.20 lacs was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 5.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 7.89 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS

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 36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs.42.20 lacs was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 5.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 7.89 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS