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.

1,214 results for “TDS”+ Section 142(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,214Delhi1,110Bangalore469Kolkata311Hyderabad284Chennai255Jaipur201Pune146Chandigarh144Ahmedabad139Indore118Cochin115Karnataka102Visakhapatnam101Rajkot68Raipur58Patna43Nagpur42Surat42Dehradun40Lucknow35Guwahati28Cuttack26Jodhpur26Agra20Ranchi13Amritsar13Panaji9Jabalpur8Allahabad7Telangana5SC4Calcutta4Varanasi3Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)79Addition to Income57Section 153C55Section 14841Section 26340Disallowance36Section 25028Deduction28Section 6825Section 147

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU (2), MUMBAI

ITA 424/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 211

142, where, the\nCourt has held that where the word of taxing statute fails, then\nso must the tax. The Courts cannot help the draftsman by a\nfavourable construction where the legislature failed to fit in the\nlaw in the scheme of the Act. In that case, the court was\nconcerned with whether the assessee was liable to pay additional

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3740/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 211

142, where, the\nCourt has held that where the word of taxing statute fails, then\nso must the tax. The Courts cannot help the draftsman by a\nfavourable construction where the legislature failed to fit in the\nlaw in the scheme of the Act. In that case, the court was\nconcerned with whether the assessee was liable to pay additional

Showing 1–20 of 1,214 · Page 1 of 61

...
24
Section 1022
TDS18

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4391/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4392/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4395/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

STAARK ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 13(2)(2)

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

ITA 2418/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd., A-20, Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400063, Pan: Aatcs1816J ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-13(2) (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin S. Chhag, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 44A

142 (1).[Para 1] 14 M/s. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd. In the present case, the facts did not warrant the order made by the High Court. At the same time, this Court notices that the High Court had granted liberty to the concerned authority to issue appropriate notice. It is clarified, therefore, that the Assessing Officer is free to complete

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1484/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

TDS) also the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure amounting to Rs.3,97,90,291/-in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Additions for unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

TDS) also the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure amounting to Rs.3,97,90,291/-in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Additions for unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,46,24,270/- and difference in valuation of fixed asset of Rs.2,50,19,760/- being written off were also made

SCHWAB EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY ETF ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -4(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2134/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

TDS credit to Rs.236,926.\nInitiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act\n9. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging\nmisreporting of income by the Appellant.\"\n2. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee's appeal,\npertains to the manner of set off of short-term capital loss, which

TATA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RANGE-2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3676/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2005-06
For Respondent: Shri P.C Chhottary
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Section 142(2) of\nthe Act the Appellant was required to explain the allowability of\nthe aforesaid expense. In response, vide letter dated\n28/12/2007, the Appellant submitted that the same were in the\nnature of normal business expenses incurred during the course\nof its business and therefore, allowable as deduction. However,\nthe aforesaid explanation did not find favour with

ISHARES MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES EMERGING MARKETS INDEX MAURITIUS CO ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2150/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

TDS credit to Rs.236,926.\nInitiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act\n9. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging\nmisreporting of income by the Appellant.\"\n2. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee's appeal,\npertains to the manner of set off of short-term capital loss, which

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 5079/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dyani
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013: - “QUESTIONNAIRE/A.Y.2006-07 TO 2012-13/UNITY INFRAPROJECTS LTD Please furnish the following details/documents as indicated with respect to hearings for A.Y. 2007-07 TO 2012-13 1. If you wish to be represented by an authorized representative, please furnish a letter of Authority in prescribed form. Without letter of authority no cognizance

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 5082/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dyani
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013: - “QUESTIONNAIRE/A.Y.2006-07 TO 2012-13/UNITY INFRAPROJECTS LTD Please furnish the following details/documents as indicated with respect to hearings for A.Y. 2007-07 TO 2012-13 1. If you wish to be represented by an authorized representative, please furnish a letter of Authority in prescribed form. Without letter of authority no cognizance

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 5083/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dyani
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013: - “QUESTIONNAIRE/A.Y.2006-07 TO 2012-13/UNITY INFRAPROJECTS LTD Please furnish the following details/documents as indicated with respect to hearings for A.Y. 2007-07 TO 2012-13 1. If you wish to be represented by an authorized representative, please furnish a letter of Authority in prescribed form. Without letter of authority no cognizance

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 5085/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dyani
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013: - “QUESTIONNAIRE/A.Y.2006-07 TO 2012-13/UNITY INFRAPROJECTS LTD Please furnish the following details/documents as indicated with respect to hearings for A.Y. 2007-07 TO 2012-13 1. If you wish to be represented by an authorized representative, please furnish a letter of Authority in prescribed form. Without letter of authority no cognizance

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 5081/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dyani
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013: - “QUESTIONNAIRE/A.Y.2006-07 TO 2012-13/UNITY INFRAPROJECTS LTD Please furnish the following details/documents as indicated with respect to hearings for A.Y. 2007-07 TO 2012-13 1. If you wish to be represented by an authorized representative, please furnish a letter of Authority in prescribed form. Without letter of authority no cognizance

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 5080/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dyani
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013: - “QUESTIONNAIRE/A.Y.2006-07 TO 2012-13/UNITY INFRAPROJECTS LTD Please furnish the following details/documents as indicated with respect to hearings for A.Y. 2007-07 TO 2012-13 1. If you wish to be represented by an authorized representative, please furnish a letter of Authority in prescribed form. Without letter of authority no cognizance

UNITY INFRAPORJECTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 5084/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dyani
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 274

section 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013: - “QUESTIONNAIRE/A.Y.2006-07 TO 2012-13/UNITY INFRAPROJECTS LTD Please furnish the following details/documents as indicated with respect to hearings for A.Y. 2007-07 TO 2012-13 1. If you wish to be represented by an authorized representative, please furnish a letter of Authority in prescribed form. Without letter of authority no cognizance