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.

11 results for “TDS”+ Section 2(37)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,448Delhi2,379Bangalore1,142Chennai842Kolkata537Ahmedabad444Hyderabad335Jaipur242Indore232Chandigarh226Cochin211Pune198Karnataka192Raipur167Surat95Visakhapatnam81Rajkot77Lucknow67Cuttack63Ranchi43Agra34Nagpur34Guwahati32Patna30Amritsar25Allahabad21Jodhpur21Dehradun18Telangana17Panaji11Calcutta10SC10Varanasi7Kerala6Jabalpur5Uttarakhand3J&K2Rajasthan1Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 20116Section 80I16Section 194A13Section 201(1)10Addition to Income9Section 407Disallowance7Section 133A6Deduction6TDS

M/S SHREE BALAJI CONCEPTS,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TXATION), WARD -1, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

ITA 73/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 73/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Hegde, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 156Section 191Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 205

TDS under Chapter XVII B and thus invocation of section 156 of the Act to levy a demand on the Appellant is totally misplaced and without any foundation. 6. The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 191 and section 205 construct a mandate not to recover tax from the deductor in the event of failure

6
Section 143(3)5
Section 253(1)3

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

2 to section 37 of the Act which is applicable to the CSR in the case of the companies. Further the assessing officer has not doubted the genuineness of the expenditure but treated the same as not incidental to the business and made disallowance. The Ld.AR highlighted the ledger account copies of expenditure and TDS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2 (1), PANAJI., PANAJI vs. SHREE KALIKA URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED , MAPUSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 367/PAN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji15 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.367/Pan/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Panaji. बनाम / V/S. Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Block No.6, Om Chambers, Feira Baiya, Near Laxminarayan Temple, Mapusa Bardes, Goa. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aacas1697Q Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Assessee By : Shri R. K. Pikale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction In Respect Of Income Of Co-Operative Society U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I), 80P(2)(C)(Ii), 80P(2)(D) & 40(A)(Ia) On The Ground That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society, Accepts Deposits Only From Its Members & Can Lend Money Only To Its Members & It Cannot Issue Cheque Books, When The Assessee Accepts Deposits & Grants Loans To Its Members On Which It Makes Profit & Gain By Way Of Charging Interest, Thus Providing Credit Facility Is Akin To Banking Business As Per Section 2(24)(Viia) & Part-V Of The Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Deduction U/S. 80P.

For Appellant: Shri R. K. PikaleFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 2(24)(viia)Section 40Section 5Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

37,14,442/- after making disallowance u/s 80P(2)(i)(a) of the Act amounting to Rs.2,46,89,152/- and disallowance of interest paid to the members for non-deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act of Rs.1,89,65,048/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer denied the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 105/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

37 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. "9. The legal proposition canvassed by the learned counsel, however, does no longer hold good in view of retrospective amendment with effect from 1-6-1976 in section 9 brought out by the Finance Act, 2010. Under the amended Explanation to section 9(1), as it exists

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 116/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

37 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. "9. The legal proposition canvassed by the learned counsel, however, does no longer hold good in view of retrospective amendment with effect from 1-6-1976 in section 9 brought out by the Finance Act, 2010. Under the amended Explanation to section 9(1), as it exists

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 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 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

SOCIAL CLUB AND KREEDA BHAVAN,BELGAVI vs. ITO, WARD - 2(1), BELGAVI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 385/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am Social Club & Kreeda Bhavan, Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Belagavi College Road, Belagavi-590002 Pan No.Aacas 6996 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.B.Chandargi, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2021 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Gulbarga, Dated 19.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013- 2013, On The Following Grounds :- 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Belgaum Has Erred In Upholding The Order Assessing Officer Disallowing Expenses Under The Head Business Or Profession Even Though Income Is Exempted As Mutual Concern By The Assessing Officer. This Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri B.B.Chandargi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr.DR
Section 40Section 40aSection 43BSection 56

37,692/- made towards payment of security charges. The assessee failed to make TDS as required under TDS provisions. Therefore, the same is brought to tax u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs.2,62,692/-. 5. On perusal of the above observations of the CIT(A), with regard disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, we found that both

GOA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED.,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), , PANAJI

In the result, both the appeal of assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 449/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Goa State Infrastructure Income Tax Officer, Ward- Development Corporation 1(1), Panaji – Goa 403 001. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Edc House, Dr. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001 (Pan: Blrgo3663C) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Goa State Infrastructure Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Development Corporation Panaji, Goa Ltd., Panaji . (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Department By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 143/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 & Ita No. 42/Cit(A)-1/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.09.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-1(1), Panaji-Goa Dated 19.12.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. M/S. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2015-16 3. The Only Issue Involved In These Two Cross Appeals Is In Relation To Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.3,37,35,560/- Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80Ia Of The Act. The Assessee Is In Appeal In Respect Of Disallowance Of An Amount Of Rs.23,97,310/- & The Department Is In Appeal In Respect Of Relief Granted By The Ld. Cit(A) For Allowance Of Rs.3,13,38,250/-, Both Comprising The Total Claim Of Rs.3,37,35,560/-.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

2. Shri Jitendra Jain, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. M/s. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2015-16 3. The only issue involved in these two cross appeals is in relation to disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,37,35,560/- claimed by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - (1), PANAJI vs. M/S GOA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED , PANAJI

In the result, both the appeal of assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 453/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Goa State Infrastructure Income Tax Officer, Ward- Development Corporation 1(1), Panaji – Goa 403 001. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Edc House, Dr. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001 (Pan: Blrgo3663C) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Goa State Infrastructure Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Development Corporation Panaji, Goa Ltd., Panaji . (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Department By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 143/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 & Ita No. 42/Cit(A)-1/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.09.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-1(1), Panaji-Goa Dated 19.12.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. M/S. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2015-16 3. The Only Issue Involved In These Two Cross Appeals Is In Relation To Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.3,37,35,560/- Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80Ia Of The Act. The Assessee Is In Appeal In Respect Of Disallowance Of An Amount Of Rs.23,97,310/- & The Department Is In Appeal In Respect Of Relief Granted By The Ld. Cit(A) For Allowance Of Rs.3,13,38,250/-, Both Comprising The Total Claim Of Rs.3,37,35,560/-.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

2. Shri Jitendra Jain, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. M/s. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2015-16 3. The only issue involved in these two cross appeals is in relation to disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,37,35,560/- claimed by the assessee