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.

982 results for “TDS”+ Section 133clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai982 Delhi755 Bangalore336 Kolkata283 Chennai185 Ahmedabad170 Jaipur127 Karnataka117 Raipur107 Pune97 Indore86 Chandigarh72 Cochin64 Surat61 Hyderabad55 Visakhapatnam44 Lucknow34 Rajkot22 Agra20 Nagpur20 Cuttack18 Amritsar17 Patna14 Guwahati14 Dehradun9 Varanasi7 Ranchi6 Panaji6 Allahabad4 Telangana3 Jabalpur3 Jodhpur2 SC2 Calcutta1 Kerala1

Key Topics

Addition to Income69 Section 143(3)68 TDS43 Disallowance42 Section 14740 Section 6840 Section 20136 Section 14835 Section 14A33 Section 133(6)

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 982 · Page 1 of 50

...

32

Section 201(1)31

TDS cannot be sole criteria for genuineness. The AO also held that the aforesaid 3 entities have not made any compliance to notice issued under section 133

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 954/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR

section 133(6) of the Act but no response was received from said but no response was received from said party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective and guard regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 957/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR

section 133(6) of the Act but no response was received from said but no response was received from said party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective and guard regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 956/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR

section 133(6) of the Act but no response was received from said but no response was received from said party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective and guard regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 955/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR

section 133(6) of the Act but no response was received from said but no response was received from said party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective and guard regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 130/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &

Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

TDS form No 16. Therefore there is no default on part of the assessee. The learned assessing officer was of the view that the amount of taxes required to be deducted as soon the amount is debited in the books of accounts whereas the claim of the assessee is that it is deducted at the source when the actual ESOP

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 132/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &

Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

TDS form No 16. Therefore there is no default on part of the assessee. The learned assessing officer was of the view that the amount of taxes required to be deducted as soon the amount is debited in the books of accounts whereas the claim of the assessee is that it is deducted at the source when the actual ESOP

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 133/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &

Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

TDS form No 16. Therefore there is no default on part of the assessee. The learned assessing officer was of the view that the amount of taxes required to be deducted as soon the amount is debited in the books of accounts whereas the claim of the assessee is that it is deducted at the source when the actual ESOP

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 131/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &

Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

TDS form No 16. Therefore there is no default on part of the assessee. The learned assessing officer was of the view that the amount of taxes required to be deducted as soon the amount is debited in the books of accounts whereas the claim of the assessee is that it is deducted at the source when the actual ESOP

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETINGS INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 127/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &

Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

TDS form No 16. Therefore there is no default on part of the assessee. The learned assessing officer was of the view that the amount of taxes required to be deducted as soon the amount is debited in the books of accounts whereas the claim of the assessee is that it is deducted at the source when the actual ESOP

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 129/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &

Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

TDS form No 16. Therefore there is no default on part of the assessee. The learned assessing officer was of the view that the amount of taxes required to be deducted as soon the amount is debited in the books of accounts whereas the claim of the assessee is that it is deducted at the source when the actual ESOP

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 128/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &

Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

TDS form No 16. Therefore there is no default on part of the assessee. The learned assessing officer was of the view that the amount of taxes required to be deducted as soon the amount is debited in the books of accounts whereas the claim of the assessee is that it is deducted at the source when the actual ESOP

DCIT 12(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BUSINESS MATCH SERVICES (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6330/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Lakshmi Vara Prasad Gude, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain, D.R

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36Section 68

section 133(6) of the Act to 19 parties calling upon the lenders to file various details such as copies of ITRs for three years, ledger accounts, bank statements, TDS

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 5140/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Michael Jerald-Sr.DR

Section 200ASection 234E

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4902/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik – Ld. DR

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

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 was deducted from the Hotel Management Charges. There are also no details regarding the purchase of raw materials for running the catering business during the year under consideration. Further, there is no breakup of various expenses charged to the profit and loss account against the income of Sanjib Sudhir Pradhan ITA no.932/Mum./2022 ITA no.1503/Mum./2022

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 was deducted from the Hotel Management Charges. There are also no details regarding the purchase of raw materials for running the catering business during the year under consideration. Further, there is no breakup of various expenses charged to the profit and loss account against the income of Sanjib Sudhir Pradhan ITA no.932/Mum./2022 ITA no.1503/Mum./2022

SONICWALL TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 15 (1)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3860/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

TDS details, bank account details, and complete address of these parties to the AO, as was available with it. However, the assessee itself was not able to contact these parties to persuade them to file a response to the notice issued under section 133

ASPANDIAR R. IRANI & GUSTAD R. IRANI,THANE vs. CIT (A)-1, THANE

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3051/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)

Section 133Section 200(3)Section 206Section 253Section 254(1)Section 272A(2)Section 272A(2)(c)Section 272A(2)(k)

TDS whereas section 133 was also unrelated to TDS and therefore these sections are not applicable. The clause (k) of section

DCIT-CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRIDENT MARBLES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the R the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment evenue for assessment year

ITA 995/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 994 & 995/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Dcit Central Circle-2(3), M/S Trident Marbles Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Near Laxmi Narayan Temple, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan (Annexe), Airport Side Service Road, Vile M.K. Road, Churchgate, Parle (E), Mumbai-400099. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4634 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vimal Punmiya a/w Shri PrakashFor Respondent: Mr. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 68

TDS on the interest paid. 5.2.3 During the course of assessment proceeding, the the course of assessment proceeding, the the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer issued noti Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133