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 31(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,615Delhi2,448Bangalore1,255Chennai821Kolkata562Hyderabad391Ahmedabad350Jaipur256Pune235Karnataka232Indore230Cochin202Chandigarh198Raipur160Nagpur89Surat83Rajkot80Visakhapatnam77Lucknow72Cuttack52Amritsar45Ranchi43Jabalpur32Guwahati31Allahabad28Patna26Agra26Jodhpur23Telangana21Dehradun20SC16Panaji11Kerala11Varanasi5Calcutta4Uttarakhand3Rajasthan2Orissa2Himachal Pradesh2J&K1

Key Topics

Section 20116Section 201(1)10Section 194A9TDS8Section 234E7Section 133A6Deduction6Addition to Income6Section 2505Section 14A

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

5
Disallowance5
Section 253(1)3

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

section 9(1)(vii) inserted by 31 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. Finance (No.2) Act, 2010 got asset of the President of India on 08.05.2010 and, hence, not applicable for the present assessment year 2010-11. The ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the following orders:- (i) Judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay

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

section 9(1)(vii) inserted by 31 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. Finance (No.2) Act, 2010 got asset of the President of India on 08.05.2010 and, hence, not applicable for the present assessment year 2010-11. The ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the following orders:- (i) Judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay

SHRI NITIN A SHIRGURKAR,BELGAVI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

ITA 77/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 194A(3)(iv)Section 263Section 40

TDS, non-business advance and residential property business advance and residential property 7 I.T.A. No. 77/PAN/2020 I.T.A. No. 77/PAN/2020 Assessment Year: 2015 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nitin A. Shirgurkar Shri Nitin A. Shirgurkar at Bangalore, were not properly examined and verified by the ld. AO during the at Bangalore, were not properly examined and verified

MOODABIDRE TOWN MUNICIPALITY,MOODUBIDIRE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TDS), MANGALORE

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 002/Pan/2020 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri B. Y. Chavan
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

TDS statement and issuance of intimation under section 200A, "fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E". 5.8 In the case of Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India (73 taxmann.com 252) (Kar), the jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court held as under: 22. It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well

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)

31,231 8,97,144 19,28,375 169/PAN/2025 2010-11 Second Default 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

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)

31,231 8,97,144 19,28,375 169/PAN/2025 2010-11 Second Default 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

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)

31,231 8,97,144 19,28,375 169/PAN/2025 2010-11 Second Default 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

PRASAD RAGHOBA NAIK,SANGUEM vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 6/PAN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Kapish KakodkarFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikant
Section 154Section 250Section 5Section 5A

31, Near Govt Ground, vs., Income Tax, CPC, Khairikhattem, Sanguem, Income Tax Department, Goa – 403 704 Bengaluru – 560 500. PAN ALFPN7563F Karnataka. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kapish Kakodkar For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikant Date of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2022 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)-12, Bengaluru

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

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

31,650/-. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and the notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire are issued. In compliance, the Ld.AR of the assesse appeared from time to time and submitted the information and details. The Assessing Officer (AO) on perusal of financial statements and information find that