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.

52 results for “TDS”+ Section 40A(9)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi521Mumbai471Chennai252Bangalore224Kolkata186Hyderabad64Jaipur57Ahmedabad52Indore46Raipur31Chandigarh30Pune30Visakhapatnam25Rajkot22Surat18Cuttack16Jodhpur12Guwahati12Lucknow12Patna12Nagpur10Amritsar10Cochin8Karnataka7Agra5Varanasi4Dehradun4Ranchi4Calcutta3Jabalpur2Allahabad2SC1Telangana1Panaji1

Key Topics

Disallowance46Addition to Income44Section 143(3)32Deduction26Section 40A(2)(b)23Section 4021Penalty15Section 40A(3)14Section 8014Section 234A

M S HOSTEL,NEW SAMA SAVLI ROAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), VADODARA, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, VADODARA

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 614/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

TDS was made good by payment of self assessment tax on 7th April 2015 6 Since she was not in need of funds she has not withdrawn the same and kept with the appellant firm to the credit of her account" 2.1 Vide notices dated 06/01/2021, 11/06/2021, 06/04/2022, 25/04/2023 the appellant was requested to file its reply, In response

INFOANALYTICA CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty u/s

Showing 1–20 of 52 · Page 1 of 3

12
Depreciation12
Natural Justice12
ITA 1592/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed
ITAT Ahmedabad
30 Jan 2025
AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 40

40a(ia) coupled with the non-adherence to notification no 11/2016 dated 2nd Dec 2016 the submission of appellant that it has submitted during assessment proceedings does not relieve the appellant from penalty being levied u/s Infoanalytica Consuling Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– 270A(9) on account of (a) misrepresentation of suppression of facts and (c) claim

APEX HEALTH CARE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

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

ITA 547/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. I.T.A No. 547/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 3 Apex Health Care Ltd. vs. DCIT 2.2. In reply the assessee justified the increase by stating that on verification of the job work charges billed, it was much lesser than the cost incurred for doing job work. In view of the same, charges were

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2557/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R
Section 40ASection 68

9,99,155 + 6,09,243). The appellant neither in asstt.proceedings nor in appeal has furnished any details 7 bills etc. for these two expenditure. It is therefore 20% of these expenditure i.e. disallowance & addition of Rs.3,20,0007- (20% of 16,00,000) are upheld and confirmed. The A.O. is directed to delete the balance addition of Rs.11

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1447/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R
Section 40ASection 68

9,99,155 + 6,09,243). The appellant neither in asstt.proceedings nor in appeal has furnished any details 7 bills etc. for these two expenditure. It is therefore 20% of these expenditure i.e. disallowance & addition of Rs.3,20,0007- (20% of 16,00,000) are upheld and confirmed. The A.O. is directed to delete the balance addition of Rs.11

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 187/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R
Section 40ASection 68

9,99,155 + 6,09,243). The appellant neither in asstt.proceedings nor in appeal has furnished any details 7 bills etc. for these two expenditure. It is therefore 20% of these expenditure i.e. disallowance & addition of Rs.3,20,0007- (20% of 16,00,000) are upheld and confirmed. The A.O. is directed to delete the balance addition of Rs.11

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1320/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R
Section 40ASection 68

9,99,155 + 6,09,243). The appellant neither in asstt.proceedings nor in appeal has furnished any details 7 bills etc. for these two expenditure. It is therefore 20% of these expenditure i.e. disallowance & addition of Rs.3,20,0007- (20% of 16,00,000) are upheld and confirmed. The A.O. is directed to delete the balance addition of Rs.11

M/S. PRAMUKH COTPRESS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K.WARD- 2,, HIMATNAGAR

ITA 3152/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Parimal Singh Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR
Section 250(6)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

section 40(A)(3) of the Act ,provided in Rule 6DD(b) of the Income Tax Rules,1962,since the assessee has not established that the payment in cash was made as prescribed by the Rules of the Government organization, which finding the Ld.Counsel for the assessee was unable to displace before us. 6.1 The balance disallowance of Rs.67

M/S. DINESHCHANDRA R.AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT.LTD.,,DEESA vs. THE JT.CIT, B.K.RANGE,, PALANPUR

In the result, ground number 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1754/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 234BSection 271Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) are not attracted where the parties are identified and there was no material on record to doubt the genuineness of payment. In the case of Walford Transport vs. CIT 240 ITR 902 at page 906, it was held that where a transaction is found to be genuine and the identity of the payee is established, a liberal

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under consideration

ITA 1583/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 35Section 40A(2)(b)

section 10A(2)(b) of the Act was of the general nature. Therefore, claim of commission payment to the amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 9. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to Rs. 6 lacs after

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 576/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69C

9. The CIT(A) allowed telescoping of unaccounted income against unaccounted expenditures, setting off the unaccounted income discovered during the search with the unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee. Since the unaccounted receipts and expenditures were part of the same business activity and the expenditures were incurred from the unaccounted receipts, the CIT(A) found it appropriate to apply telescoping

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITA 569/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69C

9. The CIT(A) allowed telescoping of unaccounted income against unaccounted expenditures, setting off the unaccounted income discovered during the search with the unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee. Since the unaccounted receipts and expenditures were part of the same business activity and the expenditures were incurred from the unaccounted receipts, the CIT(A) found it appropriate to apply telescoping

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

9. Scrap Sale Income - Rs.35,05,685/- 9.1 The brief facts leading to this issue are that the assessee had earned miscellaneous income comprises of scrap income of Rs.3505,685/- from ITA Nos. 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 38– Baddi unit for the year under consideration. Assessee claimed it as deduction u/s 80IC

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

9. Scrap Sale Income - Rs.35,05,685/- 9.1 The brief facts leading to this issue are that the assessee had earned miscellaneous income comprises of scrap income of Rs.3505,685/- from ITA Nos. 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 38– Baddi unit for the year under consideration. Assessee claimed it as deduction u/s 80IC

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1),AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under\nconsideration

ITA 1585/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 35Section 40A(2)(b)

40A(2)(b) of the Act, with respect to similar\ncommission expenses. Copy of the order passed by the ITAT has been placed\non record before us.\n\n15. Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that even for A.Y. 2014-\n15 the ITAT Ahmedabad in assessee's own case in ITA No. 2917/Ahd/2017\nvide order dated 23.02.2022 deleted similar

AKSHATAM CONSTRUCTION LLP,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

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

ITA 1559/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1559/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Akshatam Construction Llp, D.C.I.T., 302, Silver Coin, Vs. Circle-1(2), Shrenik Park Char Rasta, Vadodara. Nr. Akota Statdium, Vadodara-390020. Pan: Aaxfa6302N

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 194CSection 40A(2)(b)

TDS liability arise under l.T.Act. • The car in this case per se was availed on a rental basis and the limit under 1941 was Rs. 1.8L. • It was not a car facility taken on contractual basis to be charged u/s 194C. 3. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 is that the learned

PIRAMAL FINANCE PVT. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1273/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 251Section 35ASection 80G

TDS of Rs.1,40,028/- was carried forward in the return. Under the circumstances, the assessee was duty bound to reconcile the difference in the quantum of transaction as per 26AS and as appearing in the books of accounts. The assessee has also not filed any confirmation from ITA No.1273/Ahd/2018 (PiramalFinance Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT) A.Y.– 2014-15 - 9 – Urbanize Developers

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2114/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

40a(ia) r.w.s 195 of the IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1751/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

40a(ia) r.w.s 195 of the IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3470/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

40a(ia) r.w.s 195 of the IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9