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.

12 results for “TDS”+ Section 80Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai12Jaipur7Chandigarh6Bangalore5Kolkata5Pune2Visakhapatnam2Chennai1Karnataka1Ranchi1Varanasi1Hyderabad1

Key Topics

Section 4020Section 115B12Deduction11Section 153A9Section 80G9Section 80D8Addition to Income8Section 14A7Section 80C6Section 132

PIYUSH A. VORA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3221/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhpiyush A. Vora Acit, Cc-47 52/5Th Floor, Kedia Apartment, Mumbai. Doongarshi Road, Malabar Hill, Vs Mumbai-400006 Pan:Ablpv6068P (Appellant) (Respondent) Piyush A. Vora Acit, Cc-47 52/5Th Floor, Kedia Apartment, Mumbai. Doongarshi Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Mumbai-400006 Pan:Ablpv6068P (Appellant) (Respondent) Ta No.3223/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) Piyush A. Vora Acit, Cc-47 52/5Th Floor, Kedia Apartment, Mumbai. Doongarshi Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Mumbai-400006 Pan:Ablpv6068P (Appellant) (Respondent) Piyush A. Vora Acit, Cc-47 52/5Th Floor, Kedia Apartment, Mumbai. Doongarshi Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Mumbai-400006 Pan:Ablpv6068P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash K. Jotwani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Virender Singh (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 254(1)
6
TDS5
Survey u/s 133A5
Section 271(1)(c)
Section 271A
Section 80D

80D. However, the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- offered in revised return of income was sustained. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty while relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of MAK Data 358 ITR 493(SC). In our view, the ratio of decision in MAK Data (supra) is not applicable on the fact

VINAYAK BHALCHANDRA RANDIVE,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(4), THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2991/MUM/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 254(1)Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

80D and Rs. 10,000/- under section 80TTA of the Act despite observing that the tax was computed under the old regime. Thus, the aforesaid Chapter VIA deductions aggregating to Rs. 85,000/- may be allowed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not allowing

VINAYAK BHALCHANDRA RANDIVE,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(4) THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3005/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 254(1)Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

80D and Rs. 10,000/- under section 80TTA of the Act despite observing that the tax was computed under the old regime. Thus, the aforesaid Chapter VIA deductions aggregating to Rs. 85,000/- may be allowed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not allowing

SUDHIR NAMDEV KADAM,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7175/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsudhir Namdev Kadam, Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 501/1/A Wing Panchasheel Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. Chs, Dr E Moses Road, Worli Naka, Mumbai, Mumbai, Worli S.O 400018. Pan/Gir No: Aqypk0373Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prateek Jain Respondent By Ms. Deepika Arora (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 10Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

section 80D amounting to Rs. 48,807/- towards medical insurance premium paid by the assessee, which is a legitimate claim under Chapter VI-A. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in ignoring the TDS

NTT GLOBAL NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 3095/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, SR AR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)Section 80G(5)

80D (Mediclaim), 80G (Donations), etc. has been extended to 30th June, 2020. Hence the investment/payment can be made up to 30.06.2020 for claiming the deduction under these sections for FY 2019-20. iv. The date for making investment/construction/purchase for claiming roll over benefit/deduction in respect of capital gains under sections 54 to 54GB of the IT Act has also been

M/S WADHWA CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

ITA 584/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 194ISection 2Section 40Section 69C

TDS was confirmed. 027. At the time of hearing, the learned authorised representative submitted that assessee does not want to pursue the same. Accordingly, ITA No.585/Mum/2022 is dismissed. 028. Coming to the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer, both the parties confirmed that all the grounds raised therein are identical to ground nos. 6 to 10 in appeal

ACIT CENTRAL CIR 5(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WADHWA CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

ITA 631/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 194ISection 2Section 40Section 69C

TDS was confirmed. 027. At the time of hearing, the learned authorised representative submitted that assessee does not want to pursue the same. Accordingly, ITA No.585/Mum/2022 is dismissed. 028. Coming to the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer, both the parties confirmed that all the grounds raised therein are identical to ground nos. 6 to 10 in appeal

THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI. vs. WADHWA CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

ITA 851/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 194ISection 2Section 40Section 69C

TDS was confirmed. 027. At the time of hearing, the learned authorised representative submitted that assessee does not want to pursue the same. Accordingly, ITA No.585/Mum/2022 is dismissed. 028. Coming to the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer, both the parties confirmed that all the grounds raised therein are identical to ground nos. 6 to 10 in appeal

M/S WADHWA CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

ITA 585/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 194ISection 2Section 40Section 69C

TDS was confirmed. 027. At the time of hearing, the learned authorised representative submitted that assessee does not want to pursue the same. Accordingly, ITA No.585/Mum/2022 is dismissed. 028. Coming to the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer, both the parties confirmed that all the grounds raised therein are identical to ground nos. 6 to 10 in appeal

ACIT CENT. CIR 5(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. WADHWA CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

ITA 227/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 194ISection 2Section 40Section 69C

TDS was confirmed. 027. At the time of hearing, the learned authorised representative submitted that assessee does not want to pursue the same. Accordingly, ITA No.585/Mum/2022 is dismissed. 028. Coming to the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer, both the parties confirmed that all the grounds raised therein are identical to ground nos. 6 to 10 in appeal

SATISH RAJAJI RATHOD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5404/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sucheck AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

TDS and the same was incurred for business purpose. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 100,000/- u/s. 80C and Rs. 6,755/- u/s. 80D under chapter VI-A.” 3. The present appeal is delayed by 105 days. Along with the appeal

LAADKI TRADING & INVESTMENTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5493/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jmand Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

TDS claimed amounting to Rs.22,80,044/-, as against Rs.16,13,545/- allowed by the Assessing Officer. 2. The appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to allow full credit for tax deducted at source amounting To Rs.22,80,044/- having regard to the fact that all certificates of tax deducted at source are before him.” 3 M/s. Laadki