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.

1,060 results for “TDS”+ Section 133clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,060 Delhi773 Bangalore347 Kolkata287 Chennai194 Ahmedabad130 Karnataka117 Jaipur113 Raipur97 Indore66 Chandigarh65 Cochin61 Pune55 Surat54 Hyderabad46 Visakhapatnam38 Lucknow31 Agra20 Nagpur20 Rajkot15 Patna14 Guwahati12 Amritsar10 Dehradun9 Ranchi8 Varanasi7 Panaji6 Cuttack5 Allahabad4 Jabalpur3 Telangana3 SC2 Jodhpur2 Calcutta1 Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)79 Addition to Income69 Disallowance48 TDS47 Section 6844 Section 14739 Section 14A36 Section 14835 Section 133(6)28 Section 250

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 1,060 · Page 1 of 53

...

27

Section 201(1)25

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 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 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

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 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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI CITY vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI CITY

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the

ITA 1932/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: \nShri P. J. Pardiwala/Shri Paras SalvaFor Respondent: \nDr. Kishore Dhule/Shri R. A. Dhyani

Section 194Section 194ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

TDS liability u/s. 194A in this case?'\n5.\nThe only issue that arises for our consideration, in the present case,\npertains to the liability of the assessee to withhold tax at source under section\n194A, section 194H, or section 194J of the Act.\nState Bank of India\nITAs no. 1925 to 1932/Mum/2023\nITAs no. 1899 to 1903/Mum./2023\n6.\nThe

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, in the present batch of appeals for the

ITA 1926/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/Shri Paras SalvaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule/Shri R. A. Dhyani

Section 194Section 194ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

TDS liability u/s. 194A in this case?'\n5.\nThe only issue that arises for our consideration, in the present case,\npertains to the liability of the assessee to withhold tax at source under section\n194A, section 194H, or section 194J of the Act.\nState Bank of India\nITAs no. 1925 to 1932/Mum/2023\nITAs no. 1899 to 1903/Mum./2023

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI CITY vs. ITO (TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1930/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/Shri Paras SalvaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule/Shri R. A. Dhyani

Section 194Section 194ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

TDS liability u/s. 194A in this case?'\n\n5.\n\nThe only issue that arises for our consideration, in the present case,\npertains to the liability of the assessee to withhold tax at source under section\n194A, section 194H, or section 194J of the Act.\n\nPage | 4\n\nState Bank of India\nITAs no. 1925 to 1932/Mum/2023\nITAs