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.

621 results for “TDS”+ Section 2(13)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,271Mumbai4,151Bangalore2,133Chennai1,455Kolkata1,062Pune891Ahmedabad794Hyderabad743Indore621Jaipur495Chandigarh419Raipur414Cochin354Nagpur288Karnataka287Surat255Visakhapatnam252Cuttack201Rajkot164Lucknow120Amritsar106Jabalpur99Ranchi89Dehradun76Agra60Patna60Guwahati47Allahabad47Panaji45Jodhpur41Telangana40SC19Kerala14Varanasi13Calcutta10Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Orissa3Uttarakhand3Punjab & Haryana2J&K2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)68Addition to Income62Disallowance46Section 234E38Section 26337TDS36Section 40A(3)31Section 6829Section 200A29Section 147

ASIAN BUSINESS CONECTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) , BHOPAL

ITA 936/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 35D

TDS of Rs. 60,43,900/- were made and the income was assessed at Rs. 2,97,16,45,750/-. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and failed to succeed on any of the grounds raised before him, as the observations of the Ld. A.O were duly confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) by further adding few judgments

Showing 1–20 of 621 · Page 1 of 32

...
28
Section 201(1)25
Deduction24

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 252/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate with Shri Gagan TiwariFor Respondent: 28.09.2022
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 271ASection 271DSection 274Section 41(1)

13. In the above background, it is submitted that since I have duly complied with all the conditions as contemplated under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA of the income- Tax Act, 1961, the provisions of sub section (1) of section 271AAA, which provides for imposition of penalty in the case of a person in whose

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

ITA 663/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment. 30. Moreover, as reliance placed on the aforesaid decision for applicability of section 80P(4) of the Act in the facts of the case is also not possible to accept

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 692/IND/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 220(2)

TDS has been deducted and paid in accordance with law the AO would grant the credit. This ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Ground No.7 is against levy of interest u/s 220(2) at Rs.60080/-. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that authorities below were not justified in charging u/s 220(2

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 280/IND/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 220(2)

TDS has been deducted and paid in accordance with law the AO would grant the credit. This ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Ground No.7 is against levy of interest u/s 220(2) at Rs.60080/-. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that authorities below were not justified in charging u/s 220(2

M/S. ARIHANT CHERITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-1, INDORE

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

ITA 909/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS, Coimbatore [I.T.A. No. 2710/Mum/2015] vide order dated 01-03-2018 has held that: [Page No. 62-67] “5………………..The issue to be decided is as to whether the work carried out by the assessee would fall in the category of technical services as envisaged by the provisions of section 9 of the Act. Technical services mean any consideration paid

BAL BHAVAN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

ITA 321/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Bal Bhavan School, Dcit (Exemption), 1, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaab3678G Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2024

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

section 13(1)(c)/13(2). Therefore, the payment of Rs. 14,65,992/- made in current year constituting just 0.21% of market value, is very much reasonable and must be accepted. (iv) The assessee has made month-to-month payment to the payees through banking channel after deduction of appropriate TDS

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 109/IND/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

2 to section 9(1)(vii) and therefore not liable for TDS u/s 194J. Against decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the department filed appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court whereupon the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded matter to department for ascertaining with technical assistance as to whether there was involvement of human intervention or not? The issue again

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 110/IND/2015[2013-14 (for first three quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

2 to section 9(1)(vii) and therefore not liable for TDS u/s 194J. Against decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the department filed appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court whereupon the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded matter to department for ascertaining with technical assistance as to whether there was involvement of human intervention or not? The issue again

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 111/IND/2015[2013-14 (Quarter 4)]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 194Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

2 to section 9(1)(vii) and therefore not liable for TDS u/s 194J. Against decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the department filed appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court whereupon the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded matter to department for ascertaining with technical assistance as to whether there was involvement of human intervention or not? The issue again

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT (TDS), BHOPAL

ITA 415/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 263

2 to section 9(1)(vii) and therefore not liable for TDS u/s 194J. Against Page 7 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the department filed appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court whereupon the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded matter

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

ITA 265/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 263

2 to section 9(1)(vii) and therefore not liable for TDS u/s 194J. Against Page 7 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the department filed appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court whereupon the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded matter

THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM SUPRINTENDENT,JHABUA vs. JCIT(TDS), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 307/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2009-10
Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)Section 27g

TDS returns for quarter 1 and 4l'of the assessment years 2OO9-1O' 2010-11 and 2}LL-La, ignoring various reasonable cause under section 27gB of the Act and while the Ld. CIT (A) has deleted year 2OL2- penalty under section 272A (21(kl for, the "u"9;:T:nt l 13

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

ITA 125/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(1)Section 234B

TDS credit is dismissed as non- pressed.” 5.3 The Tribunal has repeatedly taken a view that the credit of the tax deducted at source or collected at source should be given to the person in whose hands the income is rightfully and finally assessed to tax in accordance with law, irrespective of the person in whose hands the Page 13

MILLION TRADERS BHOPAL P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

ITA 124/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(1)Section 234B

TDS credit is dismissed as non- pressed.” 5.3 The Tribunal has repeatedly taken a view that the credit of the tax deducted at source or collected at source should be given to the person in whose hands the income is rightfully and finally assessed to tax in accordance with law, irrespective of the person in whose hands the Page 13

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

ITA 33/IND/2020[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)(b)

TDS under section 195. 13. We notice that to give effect to the order of this Tribunal dated 24.12.2014 proceedings were initiated by ITO (IT&TP), Bhopal in the case of the appellant. As per para 58 of the ITAT's order, it was held by the ITAT that the scope of Section 5(2

M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., UNIT SATNA CEMENT WORKS,SATNA vs. ITO (IT & TP), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeals

ITA 34/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)(b)

TDS under section 195. 13. We notice that to give effect to the order of this Tribunal dated 24.12.2014 proceedings were initiated by ITO (IT&TP), Bhopal in the case of the appellant. As per para 58 of the ITAT's order, it was held by the ITAT that the scope of Section 5(2

CMM KETI JV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(3), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Cmm Keti Jv, Income-Tax Officer, 108, Shalimar Corporate 1(3), Center, Indore. बनाम/ 8-B, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aakfc7524K Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca & Shri Prakash Gupta, Ca Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 270A(9)Section 271BSection 272(1)(d)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

TDS filed to CIT(A) at Page 99 of Paper-Book. 10. Therefore, Ld. AR contended, the AO ought to have considered assessee’s facts and refrained from making any intervention with the income declared in return. Ld. AR submitted that the AO is wrong in assessing business income of assessee on adhoc basis @ 2% of turnover and thereby making

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

ITA 314/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 80Section 80I

2,00,63,045/- as on 31.03.2009, which clearly evident that the assessee has deployed substantial funds; (ii) the assessee was holding inventory of the projects year-after-year as depicted in the respective Balance-Sheets. 9. Then, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in Koya& Co. Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 21 Taxmann.Com

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

ITA 311/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 80Section 80I

2,00,63,045/- as on 31.03.2009, which clearly evident that the assessee has deployed substantial funds; (ii) the assessee was holding inventory of the projects year-after-year as depicted in the respective Balance-Sheets. 9. Then, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in Koya& Co. Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 21 Taxmann.Com