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.

686 results for “TDS”+ Section 131clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi766Mumbai686Bangalore238Kolkata203Chennai144Hyderabad116Jaipur105Karnataka94Chandigarh92Ahmedabad80Cochin57Indore55Raipur53Pune41Surat36Visakhapatnam30Lucknow27Rajkot17Dehradun14Nagpur13Cuttack12Patna9Jodhpur8Guwahati8Panaji8Ranchi7Allahabad5Varanasi4SC3Calcutta3Amritsar3Telangana2Agra2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income69Section 14A60Section 143(3)58Disallowance53Section 6845Section 69C38TDS34Section 14731Deduction31Section 40

INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KIRITBHAI K. THUMMAR, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 697/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Showing 1–20 of 686 · Page 1 of 35

...
20
Survey u/s 133A20
Section 143(2)19

TDS was deducted.” 18. Similar to the aforesaid loan transaction, even in this case also, from the submission dated 06/08/2019 filed by the AO, through office of learned Shri Kiritbhai K. Thummar ITA No.697/Mum./2018 CO No. 115/Mum./2019 DR, we find that though the AO accepted the fact that pursuant to summons issued under section 131

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3010/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra B. SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh, DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 194CSection 194DSection 194ISection 194JSection 201(1)

131 of the Act . During the course of survey proceedings and subsequent proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act, AO noticed that the payments in respect of outsourcing expenses and data storage charges have been made after deducting TDS u/s 194C of the Act and not under the applicable provisions of section

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE NSURANACE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3011/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra B. SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh, DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 194CSection 194DSection 194ISection 194JSection 201(1)

131 of the Act . During the course of survey proceedings and subsequent proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act, AO noticed that the payments in respect of outsourcing expenses and data storage charges have been made after deducting TDS u/s 194C of the Act and not under the applicable provisions of section

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3009/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra B. SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh, DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 194CSection 194DSection 194ISection 194JSection 201(1)

131 of the Act . During the course of survey proceedings and subsequent proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act, AO noticed that the payments in respect of outsourcing expenses and data storage charges have been made after deducting TDS u/s 194C of the Act and not under the applicable provisions of section

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3878/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

131( Mumbai), case where amount on which tax was deducted at case where amount on which tax was deducted at source is not at all source is not at all chargeable to tax, command of section 199 will have to be chargeable to tax, command of section 199 will have to be chargeable to tax, command of section 199 will

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3916/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

131( Mumbai), case where amount on which tax was deducted at case where amount on which tax was deducted at source is not at all source is not at all chargeable to tax, command of section 199 will have to be chargeable to tax, command of section 199 will have to be chargeable to tax, command of section 199 will

DCIT(TDS)OSD-1(2), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5211/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

Section 201(1)Section 250Section 29

section 194H of the Act on margins retained by various channel partners is that relationship between assessee company and channel partners is of principal to principal nature. It is gathered from the survey u/s 131 of the Act, that there is a "Principal to Agent" relationship between assessee-company and its various channel partners. This is established by the following

DCIT(TDS)OSD-1(2), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5210/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

Section 201(1)Section 250Section 29

section 194H of the Act on margins retained by various channel partners is that relationship between assessee company and channel partners is of principal to principal nature. It is gathered from the survey u/s 131 of the Act, that there is a "Principal to Agent" relationship between assessee-company and its various channel partners. This is established by the following

DCIT(TDS)-1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5165/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

Section 201(1)Section 250Section 29

section 194H of the Act on margins retained by various channel partners is that relationship between assessee company and channel partners is of principal to principal nature. It is gathered from the survey u/s 131 of the Act, that there is a "Principal to Agent" relationship between assessee-company and its various channel partners. This is established by the following

CANARA BANK (E-SYNDICATE) BANDRA WEST II BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

ITA 6312/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan & Mrs. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 133Section 201(1)Section 250

TDS during the period of FY 2011-12 to FY 2018-19 and statement of Shri Janardan N. Bhoga, Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank was recorded under Section 131

CANARA BANK (E-SYNDICATE) BANDRA WEST II BRANCH, MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

ITA 6310/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan & Mrs. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 133Section 201(1)Section 250

TDS during the period of FY 2011-12 to FY 2018-19 and statement of Shri Janardan N. Bhoga, Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank was recorded under Section 131

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD(NOW KNOWN AS M/S.DISNEY BROADCASTING (INDIA) LIMITED), MUMBAI

ITA 5958/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit 16(1) Utv Entertainment R.No. 439, Aayakar Television Ltd. (Now Bhavan, M.K Marg, Known As M/S. Disney V. Mumbai 400020 Broadcasting (India) Ltd.) 11, Solitaire Corporate Park, Guru Hargovind Marg, Chakala , Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaccv4782D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Cit-Dr) Shri. Abhishek Tilak Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 5958/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.5958/Mum/2017

For Respondent: Shri. Charanjeet Singh Gulati
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

131 & 134(2003) & 322 ITR 140 (Del) (2011). The Delhi bench of the Tribunal, in that case held that the satellite company‘s revenues fell within the purview of royalty u/s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, the Tribunal held that the TV channels were not merely using the facility, but were using the process

NITIN A. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1201/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Nitin A. Shah, Dcit, Cc-1(3), 31/32, 8Th Floor, 905, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Giriraj Apartment, Vs. Old Cgo Building Annex, Teen Batti, Walkeshwar, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps 3826 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR

TDS) and cash of ₹30,666/- towards interest payment at towards interest payment at the rate of 6% on ₹20 lakh. A statement of assessee was also tatement of assessee was also recorded during survey proceeding. In said statement, the assessee recorded during survey proceeding. In said statement, the assessee recorded during survey proceeding. In said statement, the assessee admitted

NITIN A. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1200/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Nitin A. Shah, Dcit, Cc-1(3), 31/32, 8Th Floor, 905, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Giriraj Apartment, Vs. Old Cgo Building Annex, Teen Batti, Walkeshwar, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps 3826 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR

TDS) and cash of ₹30,666/- towards interest payment at towards interest payment at the rate of 6% on ₹20 lakh. A statement of assessee was also tatement of assessee was also recorded during survey proceeding. In said statement, the assessee recorded during survey proceeding. In said statement, the assessee recorded during survey proceeding. In said statement, the assessee admitted

ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT TDS 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 6625/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor &For Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar
Section 194BSection 201Section 201(1)

Section 194BB of the Act was brought in the statute by Finance Act, 1978 w.e.f. 01.04.1978, and it applies to a person who has license for horse racing and who is responsible for paying to any person any income by way of winning from horse races. A Circular was issued by the CBDT explaining the provisions of the Finance

DCIT- CIRCLE- 1, THANE vs. DARSHAN ENTERPRISES , THANE

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 131 of the Act to 11 parties, all filed replies. Fourthly, all the lenders are income tax assessees, their ITR’s are therefore before the AO, PAN is also before the AO, TDS

DCIT- CIRCLE- 1 , THANE vs. DARSHAN ENTERPRISES, THANE

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 131 of the Act to 11 parties, all filed replies. Fourthly, all the lenders are income tax assessees, their ITR’s are therefore before the AO, PAN is also before the AO, TDS

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1503/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mrs. Rituja Pawar Deswal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

TDS has been made under Hotel Management charges. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to produce documentary evidence in support of its claim of running the Hotel Management business. The assessee was asked to produce the bills/vouchers, documentary evidence for payment of VAT, service tax, other statutory dues, payments, and books of accounts in support of its claim. In the absence

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 932/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mrs. Rituja Pawar Deswal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

TDS has been made under Hotel Management charges. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to produce documentary evidence in support of its claim of running the Hotel Management business. The assessee was asked to produce the bills/vouchers, documentary evidence for payment of VAT, service tax, other statutory dues, payments, and books of accounts in support of its claim. In the absence

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 707/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Kumar C Leuva
Section 133ASection 154Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS shall be deducted on the whole of the invoice value. It is further proposed to make the amendments effective from the 1st day of October, 2009. Accordingly, the proposed amendments will apply to credits or payments effected on or after 1st October, 2009." 16. In view of the above, the legal position which emerges is that, in a case