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.

901 results for “TDS”+ Section 132(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai901Delhi754Bangalore481Hyderabad282Chennai184Jaipur129Kolkata127Chandigarh122Karnataka107Ahmedabad95Raipur94Cochin85Surat46Indore45Visakhapatnam40Pune38Nagpur34Lucknow25Agra21Rajkot21Guwahati18Patna17Allahabad12Jodhpur11Amritsar11Cuttack7Dehradun6Kerala5Panaji5SC4Ranchi3Varanasi2Gauhati1Calcutta1Rajasthan1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)79Addition to Income79Section 14A70Section 153A60Section 6854Disallowance46Section 14739Section 13235Section 14835Section 69C

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7620/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri. Shiv PrakashFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari, DR
Section 140ASection 244ASection 244A(1)(b)

132. The argument in that case revolved around the question as to whether interest would be admissible under clause (1)(a) or clause (1)(b) of Section 244A, this in the context of the distinction on account of the additional requirement in the former clause to the effect that the amount refundable must be more than

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 901 · Page 1 of 46

...
33
TDS23
Reopening of Assessment18

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1053/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1052/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1054/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1051/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1774/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

For Respondent: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (CIT-
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 68

1) it will clearly reveal that the transaction is clearly covered under the said notification and D.T.A.A. agreement entered by India with U.K. and the non resident commission agent is not required to pay the taxes in India, I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 b) On perusal of circular No. 786 dated 07.02.2000 reported in 241 ITR (St.) 132 where it is been clearly

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7127/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

132 of the Act was carried out upon Lodha Group on 10/01/2011, wherein, undisclosed transactions were found and as a result about 200 crores was disclosed by the group. Such disclosure was made on account of undisclosed receipt on account of sale of car parking in the housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7129/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

132 of the Act was carried out upon Lodha Group on 10/01/2011, wherein, undisclosed transactions were found and as a result about 200 crores was disclosed by the group. Such disclosure was made on account of undisclosed receipt on account of sale of car parking in the housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7128/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

132 of the Act was carried out upon Lodha Group on 10/01/2011, wherein, undisclosed transactions were found and as a result about 200 crores was disclosed by the group. Such disclosure was made on account of undisclosed receipt on account of sale of car parking in the housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7124/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

132 of the Act was carried out upon Lodha Group on 10/01/2011, wherein, undisclosed transactions were found and as a result about 200 crores was disclosed by the group. Such disclosure was made on account of undisclosed receipt on account of sale of car parking in the housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7125/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

132 of the Act was carried out upon Lodha Group on 10/01/2011, wherein, undisclosed transactions were found and as a result about 200 crores was disclosed by the group. Such disclosure was made on account of undisclosed receipt on account of sale of car parking in the housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7126/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

132 of the Act was carried out upon Lodha Group on 10/01/2011, wherein, undisclosed transactions were found and as a result about 200 crores was disclosed by the group. Such disclosure was made on account of undisclosed receipt on account of sale of car parking in the housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5642/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

132(1) of the Act was carried out by the Department on 10/2/2012. A notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 14/09/2013 was issued by the Assessing Officer for all the seven captioned assessment years fixing the date of hearing on 19/10/2013. Since the notice was received by the assessee only on 17/10/2013, assessee sought adjournment and next

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5644/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

132(1) of the Act was carried out by the Department on 10/2/2012. A notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 14/09/2013 was issued by the Assessing Officer for all the seven captioned assessment years fixing the date of hearing on 19/10/2013. Since the notice was received by the assessee only on 17/10/2013, assessee sought adjournment and next

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5643/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

132(1) of the Act was carried out by the Department on 10/2/2012. A notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 14/09/2013 was issued by the Assessing Officer for all the seven captioned assessment years fixing the date of hearing on 19/10/2013. Since the notice was received by the assessee only on 17/10/2013, assessee sought adjournment and next

MAGNUM INFRAPROJECTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5648/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhto M/S. Magnum Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 1201-A, Shatrunjaya Darshan Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Sheth Motisha Cross Lane, Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027 Pan:Aaccm4472D ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Central Cir.45, Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kr. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

132(1) of the Act was carried out by the Department on 10/2/2012. A notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 14/09/2013 was issued by the Assessing Officer for all the seven captioned assessment years fixing the date of hearing on 19/10/2013. Since the notice was received by the assessee only on 17/10/2013, assessee sought adjournment and next

AVARSEKAR & SONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5804/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

132(1) of the Act was carried out by the Department on 10/2/2012. A notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 14/09/2013 was issued by the Assessing Officer for all the seven captioned assessment years fixing the date of hearing on 19/10/2013. Since the notice was received by the assessee only on 17/10/2013, assessee sought adjournment and next

AVARSEKAR & SONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5810/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

132(1) of the Act was carried out by the Department on 10/2/2012. A notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 14/09/2013 was issued by the Assessing Officer for all the seven captioned assessment years fixing the date of hearing on 19/10/2013. Since the notice was received by the assessee only on 17/10/2013, assessee sought adjournment and next

AVARSEKAR & SONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5809/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

132(1) of the Act was carried out by the Department on 10/2/2012. A notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 14/09/2013 was issued by the Assessing Officer for all the seven captioned assessment years fixing the date of hearing on 19/10/2013. Since the notice was received by the assessee only on 17/10/2013, assessee sought adjournment and next

AVARSEKAR & SONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5808/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

132(1) of the Act was carried out by the Department on 10/2/2012. A notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 14/09/2013 was issued by the Assessing Officer for all the seven captioned assessment years fixing the date of hearing on 19/10/2013. Since the notice was received by the assessee only on 17/10/2013, assessee sought adjournment and next