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.

29 results for “TDS”+ Section 36(1)(iv)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,279Mumbai1,121Bangalore708Chennai397Ahmedabad263Kolkata259Hyderabad210Cochin196Chandigarh181Jaipur159Karnataka151Indore112Pune108Raipur90Visakhapatnam70Cuttack61Surat46Lucknow40Rajkot39Nagpur29Jabalpur26Guwahati24Agra21Jodhpur19Dehradun15Amritsar12Telangana12Varanasi11Allahabad10SC9Patna7Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan5Panaji5Kerala5Ranchi4Uttarakhand2J&K1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)33Section 6831Addition to Income26Disallowance17Section 153A15TDS15Deduction14Section 143(2)11Section 14A10Section 132

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the A

ITA 391/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

TDS. We thus do not find reason to interfere with the first appellate order on the issue. The same is upheld. The issue is thus decided against the revenue. The above judicial pronouncement has also been followed by co- ordinate Bench of same (Pune) Tribunal in case of :- Jay Tuljabhavani Sah. Patpedhi Pragati V/s ITO (ITAT Pune) Relevant Para

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

9
Search & Seizure9
Section 2507

SHRIRAM DADAJI MATTE,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 180/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri R.K. GaneriwalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied

SHRIRAM DADAJI MATTE,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 179/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri R.K. GaneriwalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied

I.T.O.(T.D.S.) WARD 2(3), CHANDRAPUR vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD UNIT AWARPUR CEMENT WORKS,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 345/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 201

iv) ACIT (TDS) v/s ACC Ltd., ITA no.651–652/Chd./2015, dated 29.10.2015 (Trib.) (Chd.). 3. Insofar as assessee’s cross objections are concerned, the learned Counsel for assessee submitted that since the issue involved in these cross objections is covered in favour of the assessee on merits, hence, he shall not be pressing the grounds raised in these cross objections

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE , AKOLA vs. AKOLA URBAN CO-OPRATIVE BANK LTD , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 119/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

36(1)(viia) of the Act, resulting in miscarriage of justice. 4. Any other ground which may be taken at the time of hearing with the permission of Hon'ble ITAT.” 3. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Scheduled Co-operative Bank engaged in the activities of banking within the purview of Banking Regulation Act. The assessee filed

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 113/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

TDS has been deducted on such interest expenses claimed; it had already been accepted in scrutiny assessment completed u/s143(3) dt.18-8-16; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.3,99,600 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 6. The assessee

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 116/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

TDS has been deducted on such interest expenses claimed; it had already been accepted in scrutiny assessment completed u/s143(3) dt.18-8-16; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.3,99,600 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 6. The assessee

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 115/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

TDS has been deducted on such interest expenses claimed; it had already been accepted in scrutiny assessment completed u/s143(3) dt.18-8-16; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.3,99,600 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 6. The assessee

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 117/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

TDS has been deducted on such interest expenses claimed; it had already been accepted in scrutiny assessment completed u/s143(3) dt.18-8-16; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.3,99,600 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 6. The assessee

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 119/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

TDS has been deducted on such interest expenses claimed; it had already been accepted in scrutiny assessment completed u/s143(3) dt.18-8-16; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.3,99,600 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 6. The assessee

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

ITA 114/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

TDS has been deducted on such interest expenses claimed; it had already been accepted in scrutiny assessment completed u/s143(3) dt.18-8-16; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.3,99,600 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 6. The assessee

HASANTE BURHANIAH FIDAYYIAH TRUST,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD-1, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 9/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT–DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

36,400, for the assessment year 2014–15. The assessee being aggrieved, filed appeals for both the assessment years i.e., 2013–14 and 2014–15 before the first appellate authority. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeals before the learned CIT(A). 8. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by observing as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40aSection 68

section 40(a)(ia) are applicable in appellant's case and therefore the addition made by the AO was not warranted. The addition of Rs 1,50,000/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) may be deleted only if the appellant's AR submits necessary documentary evidence in support of his contention. Hence, this ground of appeal is 'partly allowed

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 176/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24

iv) Dharampal Agarwal HUF Rs. 59,12,624 Agarwal Enterprises Rs. 8,90,000 Sundry Creditors treated as unexplained ` 2,10,060 (v) Interest paid disallowed (vi) ` 7,86,217 Adhoc disallowances out of (vii) following expenses Remuneration Rs. 27,15,985 Administrative expenses Rs. 20,02,195 Rs.47,18,180 Disallowance

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 399/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68Section 69A

36(1)(iii) of I.T. Act 1961 in respect to interest paid to M/s Abhilasha Shoppers Pvt. Ltd. 8. The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 9. The order passed

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S DEBASHU SERVICES PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

ITA 228/NAG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.369/Nag/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010–11 Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.259 To 262/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006–07 To 2008–09 & 2012–13 M/S. Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 To 230/Nag/2017

For Appellant: Shri C. J. Thakar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri R. K. Baral, Jt.CIT

36,51,984 2010–11 78,199,282 11,692,870 1,16,92,870 The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 25.03.2014. 2012–13 86,593,793 15,221,872 1,52,21,872 98,06,731 54,15,141 ITA Nos.227 to 230/NAG/2017 5. Deviating from the grounds of appeal, the assessee filed

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S DEBASHU SERVICES PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

ITA 229/NAG/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.369/Nag/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010–11 Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.259 To 262/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006–07 To 2008–09 & 2012–13 M/S. Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 To 230/Nag/2017

For Appellant: Shri C. J. Thakar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri R. K. Baral, Jt.CIT

36,51,984 2010–11 78,199,282 11,692,870 1,16,92,870 The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 25.03.2014. 2012–13 86,593,793 15,221,872 1,52,21,872 98,06,731 54,15,141 ITA Nos.227 to 230/NAG/2017 5. Deviating from the grounds of appeal, the assessee filed

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S DEBASHU SERVICES PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

ITA 230/NAG/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.369/Nag/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010–11 Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.259 To 262/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006–07 To 2008–09 & 2012–13 M/S. Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 To 230/Nag/2017

For Appellant: Shri C. J. Thakar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri R. K. Baral, Jt.CIT

36,51,984 2010–11 78,199,282 11,692,870 1,16,92,870 The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 25.03.2014. 2012–13 86,593,793 15,221,872 1,52,21,872 98,06,731 54,15,141 ITA Nos.227 to 230/NAG/2017 5. Deviating from the grounds of appeal, the assessee filed

M/S DEBASHU SERVICES PVT.LTD ,NAGPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

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

ITA 261/NAG/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.369/Nag/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010–11 Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.259 To 262/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006–07 To 2008–09 & 2012–13 M/S. Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 To 230/Nag/2017

For Appellant: Shri C. J. Thakar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri R. K. Baral, Jt.CIT

36,51,984 2010–11 78,199,282 11,692,870 1,16,92,870 The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 25.03.2014. 2012–13 86,593,793 15,221,872 1,52,21,872 98,06,731 54,15,141 ITA Nos.227 to 230/NAG/2017 5. Deviating from the grounds of appeal, the assessee filed

M/S DEBASHU SERVICES PVT.LTD ,NAGPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

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

ITA 262/NAG/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.369/Nag/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010–11 Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.259 To 262/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006–07 To 2008–09 & 2012–13 M/S. Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 To 230/Nag/2017

For Appellant: Shri C. J. Thakar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri R. K. Baral, Jt.CIT

36,51,984 2010–11 78,199,282 11,692,870 1,16,92,870 The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 25.03.2014. 2012–13 86,593,793 15,221,872 1,52,21,872 98,06,731 54,15,141 ITA Nos.227 to 230/NAG/2017 5. Deviating from the grounds of appeal, the assessee filed