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.

464 results for “TDS”+ Section 151clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi478Mumbai464Bangalore165Chandigarh133Chennai129Karnataka101Hyderabad100Jaipur76Ahmedabad76Cochin59Raipur48Pune44Kolkata40Indore31Nagpur25Surat22Lucknow17Agra16Cuttack13Amritsar12Rajkot11Jodhpur9Dehradun9Visakhapatnam8Guwahati8Telangana6Allahabad3Jabalpur3SC2Varanasi2Rajasthan1Orissa1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)58Section 14748Addition to Income48Section 14846Disallowance36Penalty25Deduction25TDS23Section 6821Section 40

ACIT(IT)-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BARCLAYS EXECUTION SERVICES LIMITED, LONDON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4253/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

TDS, and that no return of income had been filed. Hence, the AO recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and initiated proceedings under section 148A. 5. A notice under section 148A(b) was issued on 1 June 2022, enclosing the relied-upon material. The assessee responded on 14 June 2022 with detailed explanations; nonetheless

DATTATRAY NAMDEV SURYAWANSHI,PANVEL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

Showing 1–20 of 464 · Page 1 of 24

...
20
Section 1120
Section 153C19

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 896/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Kaushik Makwana, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 147Section 194CSection 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 69

TDS of Rs.3,13,515/- deducted under section 194C on Contract Receipt has not been considered by the Assessing officer while computing tax liabilities although same is clearly reflected in 26AS of the Income Tax Portal. Ground 10: The CIT (A) erred in not acknowledging the fact that the Appellant was unable to respond to and submit explanations

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1054/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

TDS return etc . It Grasim Industries Ltd. 7 ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. was claimed by the a was claimed by the assessee that the transaction w ssessee that the transaction was genuine and properly disclosed in the books of accounts. The assessee company properly disclosed in the books of accounts

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1557/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

TDS return etc . It Grasim Industries Ltd. 7 ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. was claimed by the a was claimed by the assessee that the transaction w ssessee that the transaction was genuine and properly disclosed in the books of accounts. The assessee company properly disclosed in the books of accounts

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1053/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

TDS return etc . It Grasim Industries Ltd. 7 ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. was claimed by the a was claimed by the assessee that the transaction w ssessee that the transaction was genuine and properly disclosed in the books of accounts. The assessee company properly disclosed in the books of accounts

KALPANA RAMESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4596/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

TDS) Statement and information uploaded by\nInvestigation Wings/Central Circle/1 & CI on Insight Portal.\nAs per the information summary available in Insight Portal, the\nfollowing information relating to Assessment Year 2015-16\npertains to the assessee company individual.\nSr.\nNo\nSource of PAN\nName\nAAACC0823E\nSource of PAN\nName\nToyam\nIndustries Ltd\nInformatio\nn F.Y.\n2014-15\nInformation\nType\nInformation

DCIT CC 4 (4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3606/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

151 is reproduced as under: “ Approving Authority Approving Authority PCIT/CIT PCIT/CIT Category Assessment Assessment Income Escaped Amount >= 1 Lakh Income Escaped Amount >= 1 Lakh Yes Income Escaping Assessment Income Escaping Assessment (Rs.) ” 12.4 On perusal of the above proforma, it is evident that already On perusal of the above proforma, it is evident that already On perusal of the above

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3474/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

151 is reproduced as under: “ Approving Authority Approving Authority PCIT/CIT PCIT/CIT Category Assessment Assessment Income Escaped Amount >= 1 Lakh Income Escaped Amount >= 1 Lakh Yes Income Escaping Assessment Income Escaping Assessment (Rs.) ” 12.4 On perusal of the above proforma, it is evident that already On perusal of the above proforma, it is evident that already On perusal of the above

DCIT CC 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3603/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

151 is reproduced as under: “ Approving Authority Approving Authority PCIT/CIT PCIT/CIT Category Assessment Assessment Income Escaped Amount >= 1 Lakh Income Escaped Amount >= 1 Lakh Yes Income Escaping Assessment Income Escaping Assessment (Rs.) ” 12.4 On perusal of the above proforma, it is evident that already On perusal of the above proforma, it is evident that already On perusal of the above

DCIT CC 4 (4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3605/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

151 is reproduced as under: “ Approving Authority Approving Authority PCIT/CIT PCIT/CIT Category Assessment Assessment Income Escaped Amount >= 1 Lakh Income Escaped Amount >= 1 Lakh Yes Income Escaping Assessment Income Escaping Assessment (Rs.) ” 12.4 On perusal of the above proforma, it is evident that already On perusal of the above proforma, it is evident that already On perusal of the above

SANMAN TRADE IMPEX LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3470/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 69C

151 is reproduced as under: “ Approving Authority Approving Authority PCIT/CIT PCIT/CIT Category Assessment Assessment Income Escaped Amount >= 1 Lakh Income Escaped Amount >= 1 Lakh Yes Income Escaping Assessment Income Escaping Assessment (Rs.) ” 12.4 On perusal of the above proforma, it is evident that already On perusal of the above proforma, it is evident that already On perusal of the above

KALPANA RAMESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4597/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri Mani Jain a/w Shri Prateek
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

TDS) Statement and information uploaded by Investigation Wings/Central Circle/1 & Cl on Insight Portal. As per the information summary available in Insight Portal, the following information relating to Assessment Year 2015-16 pertains to the assessee company individual. Sr. Source of PAN Source of PAN Informatio Information Information No Name Name n F.Y. Type Value . 1 AAACC0823E Toyam 2014-15 Information

KALPANA RAMESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4595/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri Mani Jain a/w Shri Prateek
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

TDS) Statement and information uploaded by Investigation Wings/Central Circle/1 & Cl on Insight Portal. As per the information summary available in Insight Portal, the following information relating to Assessment Year 2015-16 pertains to the assessee company individual. Sr. Source of PAN Source of PAN Informatio Information Information No Name Name n F.Y. Type Value . 1 AAACC0823E Toyam 2014-15 Information

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX MUMBAI vs. DEVANG AJIT JAVERI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

ITA 4498/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013. Therefore

DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on aforesaid terms

ITA 3510/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013. Therefore

DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, RANGE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

ITA 3509/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

TDS) ν. ΙΚΕΑ Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR\n565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause\nNotice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly\nhe submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being\n28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013.\nTherefore

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX vs. DEVANG AJIT JHAVERI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on\naforesaid terms

ITA 4497/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

TDS) ν. ΙΚΕΑ Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR\n565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause\nNotice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly\nhe submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being\n28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013.\nTherefore

CHEMOX EXPORTS IMPORTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

ITA 3954/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nMs. Jigna Jain, A/RFor Respondent: \nShri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

151;\nso as to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability by inter alia\neliminating the interface between the Income-tax Authorities and assessee. Sub-\nsection 3 of Section 151A of the Act also provides that every notification issued under\nsub-section (1) and (2) of Section 151A of the Act shall be laid before each House of\nParliament.\nIn exercise

JAIN MACHINE TOOLS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(1)(7), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2110/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jain Machine Tools, Ito, Ward 26(1)(7), 16, Meghal Industrial Estate, Room 625, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Vs. Devidayal Road, Mulund (West) Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfj 6163 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Devendra Jain
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

151 was obtained for income escaping assessment of Rs. 1,00,000/ was obtained for income escaping assessment of Rs. 1,00,000/ was obtained for income escaping assessment of Rs. 1,00,000/- only. Jain Machine Tools 3 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned 10. In the facts and circumstances

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails