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.

6 results for “TDS”+ Section 61clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,435Delhi1,389Bangalore785Chennai520Kolkata341Ahmedabad219Hyderabad205Indore201Cochin169Jaipur137Karnataka135Chandigarh128Pune79Raipur72Visakhapatnam53Cuttack53Surat44Lucknow44Ranchi34Rajkot33Dehradun20Amritsar20Nagpur19Guwahati18Jodhpur17Patna15Agra12Telangana10Allahabad9Himachal Pradesh6Panaji6Varanasi6Kerala5SC5Jabalpur4Calcutta4Rajasthan2Uttarakhand2Punjab & Haryana1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 20110Section 409Section 143(3)5Disallowance4TDS4Section 143(1)3Section 14A3Addition to Income3Section 143(2)2Section 263

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 as per the provisions of section 195 of the Act. It is also submitted that the payees i.e. the two sellers of the property have disclosed the consideration received from the appellant in their respective return of income filed by them before the tax authorities. The submission and contention of the appellant are that since the said two sellers

2
Section 194A(3)(iv)2
Capital Gains2

PARKKOT MARITIMA AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 169/PAN/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 169/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Parkkot Maritime Agencies Pvt Ltd. Parkkot House, Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama, Goa-403802 Pan : Aadcp1208P . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1, Margoa, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr S V Shivrama Iyer [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055088420(1) Dt. 11/08/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Regular Assessment Dt. 16/03/2015 Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Margao, Goa [In Short ‘Ld. Ao’].

For Appellant: Mr S V Shivrama Iyer [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 199Section 234BSection 250

61,18,565/- and taxed the same as the income of the assessee while culminating assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dt. 16/03/2015. 3. Aggrieved assessee carried the matter in first appeal but remained unsuccessful. Further aggrieved, the assessee came in present appeal on as many as four argumentative grounds. Dispensing the reproduction thereof

M/S DEMPO RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dempo Resorts Acit, Circle-2, Margao Private Limited Empressa Dempo, Mala Vs. Fontainhas, Panaji, Goa – 403 001. Pan: Aaccd 2126 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Naik, Accountant Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 2, Panaji In Ita No. 390/Cit(A)/Pnj-1/2014-15 Re-Numbered As Ita No. 342/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 23.01.2018 Against The Order Passed By Acit, Circle-1(1), Panaji U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 29.12.2014. 2. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In The Present Appeal Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Naik, AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

61 taxman.com 45 (Del). The assessee further submitted that the impugned year is assessment year 2012-13 whereas the amendment provided in section 40(a)(ia) in respect of second proviso is applicable from assessment year 2013-14 and it cannot be taken to be effective retrospectively. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that Hon’ble Supreme Court had admitted

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

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

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