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.

19 results for “TDS”+ Section 80G(5)(ix)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chandigarh25 Delhi22 Ahmedabad19 Bangalore16 Mumbai13 Indore6 Chennai4 Jaipur3 Lucknow3 Pune3 Surat2 SC2 Ranchi1 Hyderabad1

Key Topics

Section 80I66 Section 143(2)32 Section 142(1)17 Section 2(15)16 Section 143(1)13 Deduction12 Disallowance12 Section 143(3)8 Section 118 Section 115J

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

7

Addition to Income4

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

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

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

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

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

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

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

ITA 1485/AHD/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: 22-04-2022For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR &

5. As against the Grounds of Appeal raised by both parties, five issues/disallowances were already considered by this Tribunal in ITA No.3003/Ahd/2010 & ors. relating to A.Ys. 2003-04 & ors., vide order dated 28.02.2022. It is being agreed by both the parties that those four issues are already covered in assessee’s own case in ITA No.3003/Ahd/2010. Similarly, issue regarding disallowance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,, BARODA

ITA 1770/AHD/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: 22-04-2022For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR &

5. As against the Grounds of Appeal raised by both parties, five issues/disallowances were already considered by this Tribunal in ITA No.3003/Ahd/2010 & ors. relating to A.Ys. 2003-04 & ors., vide order dated 28.02.2022. It is being agreed by both the parties that those four issues are already covered in assessee’s own case in ITA No.3003/Ahd/2010. Similarly, issue regarding disallowance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,, BARODA

ITA 1826/AHD/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: 22-04-2022For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR &

5. As against the Grounds of Appeal raised by both parties, five issues/disallowances were already considered by this Tribunal in ITA No.3003/Ahd/2010 & ors. relating to A.Ys. 2003-04 & ors., vide order dated 28.02.2022. It is being agreed by both the parties that those four issues are already covered in assessee’s own case in ITA No.3003/Ahd/2010. Similarly, issue regarding disallowance

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

ITA 2306/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

ITA 1620/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

ITA 2117/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

ITA 2116/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

ITA 3121/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

ITA 1673/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

ITA 2307/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

ITA 2308/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

ITA 1230/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI PORT & SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 3482/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

80G is to be allowed, and, as learned CIT(A) rightly observes, it is not an expense which is to be allocated to different heads or sources of income. As a matter of fact, a donation is in the nature of allocation of income and the tax deduction for eligible deduction is a tax policy driven deduction for encouraging such

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI PORT & SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 3481/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

80G is to be allowed, and, as learned CIT(A) rightly observes, it is not an expense which is to be allocated to different heads or sources of income. As a matter of fact, a donation is in the nature of allocation of income and the tax deduction for eligible deduction is a tax policy driven deduction for encouraging such

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 702/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT-D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 92C

80G of the Act. The AO further observed that the recipients did not show the amount as taxable receipts but accounted as donations. 24.3. The AO also noticed that the assessee has also not deducted TDS on such expenditure, therefore the same cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the said