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 2(17)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,643Delhi3,562Bangalore1,860Chennai1,302Kolkata820Hyderabad474Pune463Ahmedabad408Jaipur328Indore273Karnataka264Chandigarh228Cochin218Raipur213Nagpur152Visakhapatnam148Surat147Rajkot113Lucknow82Cuttack70Ranchi53Amritsar50Telangana41Patna39Dehradun37Guwahati33Panaji29Jodhpur26Agra20SC18Jabalpur13Allahabad13Kerala12Varanasi7Himachal Pradesh6Calcutta6Rajasthan6Punjab & Haryana4Uttarakhand3J&K1Gauhati1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)58TDS26Section 143(3)25Section 194A22Deduction21Section 194C20Addition to Income20Section 4019Survey u/s 133A15Disallowance

M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

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

ITA 37/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 3

TDS was deducted on the contractor payments and is not disputed by the revenue. Hence considering the facts, submissions and judicial decisions relied, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this disputed issue and direct the assessing officer to delete the disallowance of community development and village welfare 7 ITA. No.37/PAN/2023 R.S.Shetye and Bros. expenses and this

BANK OF BARODA,MUDHOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD-1, BELGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 201/PAN/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

13
Section 133A11
Section 2509
ITAT Panaji
18 Jul 2023
AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri I. Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Jagadish KamkarFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 194ASection 197Section 201(1)Section 206A

2. We note at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the assessee’s identical sole substantive ground in all these cases challenges correctness of both learned lower authorities’ action in initiating sec.201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) proceedings for recovery of varying sums of TDS amounts, assessment year-wise, respectively. 3. That being the case

BANK OF BARODA,MUDHOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD-1, BELGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 198/PAN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri I. Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Jagadish KamkarFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 194ASection 197Section 201(1)Section 206A

2. We note at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the assessee’s identical sole substantive ground in all these cases challenges correctness of both learned lower authorities’ action in initiating sec.201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) proceedings for recovery of varying sums of TDS amounts, assessment year-wise, respectively. 3. That being the case

BANK OF BARODA,MUDHOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD-1, BELGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 199/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri I. Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Jagadish KamkarFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 194ASection 197Section 201(1)Section 206A

2. We note at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the assessee’s identical sole substantive ground in all these cases challenges correctness of both learned lower authorities’ action in initiating sec.201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) proceedings for recovery of varying sums of TDS amounts, assessment year-wise, respectively. 3. That being the case

BANK OF BARODA,MUDHOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD-1, BELGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 196/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri I. Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Jagadish KamkarFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 194ASection 197Section 201(1)Section 206A

2. We note at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the assessee’s identical sole substantive ground in all these cases challenges correctness of both learned lower authorities’ action in initiating sec.201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) proceedings for recovery of varying sums of TDS amounts, assessment year-wise, respectively. 3. That being the case

BANK OF BARODA,MUDHOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD-1, BELGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 197/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri I. Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Jagadish KamkarFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 194ASection 197Section 201(1)Section 206A

2. We note at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the assessee’s identical sole substantive ground in all these cases challenges correctness of both learned lower authorities’ action in initiating sec.201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) proceedings for recovery of varying sums of TDS amounts, assessment year-wise, respectively. 3. That being the case

BANK OF BARODA,MUDHOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD-1, BELGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 200/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri I. Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Jagadish KamkarFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 194ASection 197Section 201(1)Section 206A

2. We note at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the assessee’s identical sole substantive ground in all these cases challenges correctness of both learned lower authorities’ action in initiating sec.201(1) r.w.s. 201(1A) proceedings for recovery of varying sums of TDS amounts, assessment year-wise, respectively. 3. That being the case

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 171/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

2,17,24,095 43,44,819 37,79,976 81,24,795 First Default 3,37,15,200 33,71,520 30,51,226 64,22,746 170/PAN/2025 2011-12 Second Default - - - - First Default 1,11,99,271 11,02,864 10,47,721 21,50,585 171/PAN/2025 2014-15 Second Default

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 170/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

2,17,24,095 43,44,819 37,79,976 81,24,795 First Default 3,37,15,200 33,71,520 30,51,226 64,22,746 170/PAN/2025 2011-12 Second Default - - - - First Default 1,11,99,271 11,02,864 10,47,721 21,50,585 171/PAN/2025 2014-15 Second Default

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 169/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

2,17,24,095 43,44,819 37,79,976 81,24,795 First Default 3,37,15,200 33,71,520 30,51,226 64,22,746 170/PAN/2025 2011-12 Second Default - - - - First Default 1,11,99,271 11,02,864 10,47,721 21,50,585 171/PAN/2025 2014-15 Second Default

CHOWGULE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,VASCO vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose as above

ITA 123/PAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 123/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Chowgule Industries Pvt. Ltd. 503, Gabmar Apartment, Vasco Da Gama, Goa. Pan:Aaccc9272H. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Ms Pooja Bandekar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 194HSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

17,25,779/- on which TDS u/s 194C of the Act was deducted, (ii) brokerage receipt/income of ₹94,86,636/- on which TDS u/s 194H of the Act was deducted (iii) interest income of ₹16,349/- on which TDS u/s 194A of the Act was deducted (iv) cash deposit of ₹12,16,69,672/- in one or more saving bank

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, MARGAO., MARGAO vs. M/S SALGAONCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 135/PAN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of mining, processing, trading and export of iron ores. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 30.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.139

SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,PANAJI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE., MARGAO

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 118/PAN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of mining, processing, trading and export of iron ores. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 30.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.139

ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE - PANAJI, PANAJI vs. M/S VICTOR HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL SERVICES LIMITED, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 299/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Shivshankar
Section 192BSection 194JSection 201(1)

2. The Revenue raised nine grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in holding that the TDS u/s. 194J of the Act is correct as against the view of AO u/s. 192B of the Act. 3. We note that the assessee is a private limited company conducts

MRS VINI P. KENI,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 112/PAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 112/Pan/2022 (A.Y. 2014-15 ) Vini Prasad Keni, Vs Ito-Ward-1(3), Keni Building, Aayakar Bhavan, . Dr.Dada Vaidhya Road, Panaji-403001, Panjim-403001, Goa. Goa. . Pan .No. Adppk9767N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri D.E.Robinson.Ar Revenue By Sri Narender Reddy.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Nfac/ Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised

Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

2) of the IT Rules, judicial decisions and computed disallowance u/sec14A r.w.r8D of IT rules of Rs.32,96,384/-(ii) The A.O found that the assesee has debited Rs,25,00,000/- in the profit & loss account towards reimbursement of processing and other mining expenses and the assessee has not deducted TDS 3 ITA. No. 112/PAN/2022 Vini.Prasad Keni. u/sec194C

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 152/PAN/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

2. These appeals are admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji suffers from the vice of non-application of mind inasmuch as no reasons had been assigned for making an order of remand?” 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 158/PAN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

2. These appeals are admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji suffers from the vice of non-application of mind inasmuch as no reasons had been assigned for making an order of remand?” 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 159/PAN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

2. These appeals are admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji suffers from the vice of non-application of mind inasmuch as no reasons had been assigned for making an order of remand?” 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 160/PAN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

2. These appeals are admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji suffers from the vice of non-application of mind inasmuch as no reasons had been assigned for making an order of remand?” 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 161/PAN/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

2. These appeals are admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji suffers from the vice of non-application of mind inasmuch as no reasons had been assigned for making an order of remand?” 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally