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.

63 results for “section 68”+ Section 194Iclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai63Kolkata24Delhi23Raipur17Ahmedabad14Bangalore9Jaipur8Cuttack6Chennai6Visakhapatnam1Cochin1Guwahati1Karnataka1Pune1Varanasi1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)60Section 194D52Section 194J37Deduction35TDS34Section 20128Section 194C23Section 143(3)22Disallowance21Survey u/s 133A

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7030/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

194I of the Act on the sum of INR 137.66 Crores and, therefore the Assessing Officer raised the demand under Section 201(1) of the Act levying interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act for a period of 35 months @ 1% p.m. 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal the CIT(A) and filed additional evidence

FAIYAZ YUNUS PATEL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 27(1)(4), MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4

21
Section 4020
Section 19420

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

ITA 1272/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Faiyaz Yunus Patel, Ito-27(1)(4), Flat No. 602, Vmk Chs, Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, Tower Vs. Lbs Marg, Chirag Nagar, No. 6 Vashi Railway Station Ghatkopar (W), Commercial Complex Vashi, Mumbai-400086. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan No. Akxpp 9040 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Navin Prakash MishraFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

68 of the Act.. The ground No. 1 of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 4. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee relates to The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee relates to The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee relates

PRAMOD RATAN PATIL,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

ITA 7329/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

68 8 enhancement Rs. made by the 97,83,899 on learned CIT – A account of on account of deposit in personal balance bank sheet and profit accounts ITA no. 7329 & 3851/Mum/2016 Pramod Ratan Patil; A.Y. 11–12 and loss account cash deposit of ₹ 4,00,500 in Kotak bank account on account of other income of ₹ 516,277 Total

ASST CIT 3, MUMBAI vs. PRAMOD RATAN PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

ITA 3851/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

68 8 enhancement Rs. made by the 97,83,899 on learned CIT – A account of on account of deposit in personal balance bank sheet and profit accounts ITA no. 7329 & 3851/Mum/2016 Pramod Ratan Patil; A.Y. 11–12 and loss account cash deposit of ₹ 4,00,500 in Kotak bank account on account of other income of ₹ 516,277 Total

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE NSURANACE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3011/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra B. SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh, DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 194CSection 194DSection 194ISection 194JSection 201(1)

194I only and this circular is not applicable to section 194J and the same analogy is applicable to other sections of TDS which also include the provisions of section 194D of the Act. 5. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the tax by way of short deduction

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3009/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra B. SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh, DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 194CSection 194DSection 194ISection 194JSection 201(1)

194I only and this circular is not applicable to section 194J and the same analogy is applicable to other sections of TDS which also include the provisions of section 194D of the Act. 5. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the tax by way of short deduction

DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3010/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra B. SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh, DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 194CSection 194DSection 194ISection 194JSection 201(1)

194I only and this circular is not applicable to section 194J and the same analogy is applicable to other sections of TDS which also include the provisions of section 194D of the Act. 5. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the tax by way of short deduction

DADIBA KALI PUNDOLE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT WARD 17(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 779/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 779/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2013-14) Dadiba Kali Pundole The Asst. Commissioner Of Esplanade House Income Tax, Ward 17(1) बिाम/ 2N D Floor, 29 Hazarimal Somani Marg Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Vs. (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aadpp0451H अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Mehligoluala, Ar’S प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Kavita P Kaushik, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.08.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2020 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mehligoluala, AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Kavita P Kaushik, DR
Section 143(1)Section 194Section 40

68,543/- on which no TDS was deducted and deposited as per the provisions of section 194I of the Act. The AO disallowed

LOTUS ENERGY (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT RG 8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4355/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4355/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S Lotus Energy (India) Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Ltd., Tax- Range 8, V. 409, Laxmi Plaza, 2 Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Laxmi Industrial Estate, M.K. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Mumbai -400053. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcl6119K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 40

Section Amount (Rs) under which the tax was deductible 1 Ground Rent paid to Visa Industries 194I 34,94,512/- Ltd. And Balaji Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2 Wharfage charges Visa Industries 194C 5,65,974 Ltd. And Balaji Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. 3 Stevedoring charges paid to Visa 194C 16,68

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3700/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla &For Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234DSection 37(1)

194I of the Act and there is no allegation that this TDS is not deposited with the Government account. We are of the view that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has two limbs, one is where, inter alia, assessee has to deduct tax and the second where after deducting tax, inter alia, the assessee

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3785/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla &For Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234DSection 37(1)

194I of the Act and there is no allegation that this TDS is not deposited with the Government account. We are of the view that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has two limbs, one is where, inter alia, assessee has to deduct tax and the second where after deducting tax, inter alia, the assessee

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3699/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla &For Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234DSection 37(1)

194I of the Act and there is no allegation that this TDS is not deposited with the Government account. We are of the view that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has two limbs, one is where, inter alia, assessee has to deduct tax and the second where after deducting tax, inter alia, the assessee

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3786/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla &For Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234DSection 37(1)

194I of the Act and there is no allegation that this TDS is not deposited with the Government account. We are of the view that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has two limbs, one is where, inter alia, assessee has to deduct tax and the second where after deducting tax, inter alia, the assessee

ITO (TDS) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. MILLENNIUM ASSOCIATES, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4347/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhito (Tds)-2(3), M/S Millennium Associates, Room No. 798, 7Th Floor, Plot No. 11, Avanish Sector-10, Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Vs. Airoli, Navi Mumbai-401708. Hospital Building, Charni Pan: Aapfm3953K Road, Mumbai-400002. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 133Section 156Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271

Section 194I were changed w.e.f. 01-10-2009. The rates applicable would be as under: a) For the payments ·made from 01-04-2009 to 30-09-2009, the applicable rate was 20.6 %, including E. Cess @ 3%; (PERIOD I). b) For the payments made from 01-10-2009 to 31-03-2010, the applicable rate was 10.3%, including

DCIT (TDS) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2398/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-(Tds)-2(2), M/S Sbi Life Insurance Room No.1012, 10Th Floor, Company Ltd. “Natraj”, 5Th बनाम/ Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Floor, M.V. Road & Western Vs. Hospital Building, Express High Way Charni Road, Junction, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400069 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aafcs2503P

Section 194Section 194DSection 68(2)

68(2) of the Service Tax Act read with Rule 2(1)(d)(ii) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The clause (iii) of Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules 1994 is as "person liable for paying the service tax" means- (iii) in relation to insurance auxiliary service by an insurance agent, any person carrying on the general

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result ground taken by Revenue in all the years under consideration are dismissed

ITA 6492/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma() & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

For Appellant: Shri. F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri. Bruseth
Section 133ASection 194DSection 201Section 201(1)

68(2) of the Service Tax Act read with Rule 2(1)(d)(ii) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The clause (iii) of Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules 1994 is as "person liable for paying the service tax" means- (iii) in relation to insurance auxiliary service by an insurance agent, any person carrying on the general

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result ground taken by Revenue in all the years under consideration are dismissed

ITA 6494/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma() & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

For Appellant: Shri. F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri. Bruseth
Section 133ASection 194DSection 201Section 201(1)

68(2) of the Service Tax Act read with Rule 2(1)(d)(ii) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The clause (iii) of Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules 1994 is as "person liable for paying the service tax" means- (iii) in relation to insurance auxiliary service by an insurance agent, any person carrying on the general

A.C.I.T.(TDS)-3(2), MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ground taken by Revenue in all the years under consideration are dismissed

ITA 6943/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma() & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

For Appellant: Shri. F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri. Bruseth
Section 133ASection 194DSection 201Section 201(1)

68(2) of the Service Tax Act read with Rule 2(1)(d)(ii) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The clause (iii) of Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules 1994 is as "person liable for paying the service tax" means- (iii) in relation to insurance auxiliary service by an insurance agent, any person carrying on the general

ACIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result ground taken by Revenue in all the years under consideration are dismissed

ITA 7329/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma() & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

For Appellant: Shri. F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri. Bruseth
Section 133ASection 194DSection 201Section 201(1)

68(2) of the Service Tax Act read with Rule 2(1)(d)(ii) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The clause (iii) of Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules 1994 is as "person liable for paying the service tax" means- (iii) in relation to insurance auxiliary service by an insurance agent, any person carrying on the general

A.C.I.T.(TDS)-3(2), MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ground taken by Revenue in all the years under consideration are dismissed

ITA 6946/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma() & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

For Appellant: Shri. F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri. Bruseth
Section 133ASection 194DSection 201Section 201(1)

68(2) of the Service Tax Act read with Rule 2(1)(d)(ii) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The clause (iii) of Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules 1994 is as "person liable for paying the service tax" means- (iii) in relation to insurance auxiliary service by an insurance agent, any person carrying on the general