Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

9 results for “TDS”+ Section 127clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi433 Mumbai396 Bangalore144 Karnataka107 Hyderabad94 Ahmedabad84 Jaipur82 Kolkata79 Chandigarh76 Cochin64 Indore46 Chennai43 Raipur35 Pune26 Cuttack22 Surat18 Visakhapatnam16 Lucknow16 Patna15 Jodhpur9 Rajkot9 Dehradun8 Guwahati7 Panaji6 Agra6 Varanasi5 Allahabad5 Nagpur4 SC3 Amritsar2 Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 14810 Section 80P(2)(d)10 Section 80P(2)(b)8 TDS7 Penalty5 Reopening of Assessment5 Addition to Income5 Section 194J4 Section 1474 Disallowance

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 611/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

4

Section 271(1)(c)3

Section 127(2)(a) of the Act which contemplates a positive state of mind of the two jurisdictional Commissioners of Income Tax which is conspicuously absent.  The decision of this Hon'ble Bench in the case of Atul Vrajlal Karia Vs. AC/DC (INT. TXN), Rajkot (ITA No.133/RJT/2025)  The decision of Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in a case with similar factual

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 612/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

Section 127(2)(a) of the Act which contemplates a positive state of mind of the two jurisdictional Commissioners of Income Tax which is conspicuously absent.  The decision of this Hon'ble Bench in the case of Atul Vrajlal Karia Vs. AC/DC (INT. TXN), Rajkot (ITA No.133/RJT/2025)  The decision of Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in a case with similar factual

M/S. FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALIED INDUSTRIES,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE , RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year

ITA 50/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thacker, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A Nos. 49 & 50 /Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page No 2 Friends Salt Works & Allied Industry vs. DCIT (TDS) 2. Since common issues are involved for both the years under consideration, both the appeals are being taken up together. We shall first take up the appeal

M/S. FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALIED INDUSTRIES,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE , RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year

ITA 49/RJT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thacker, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A Nos. 49 & 50 /Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page No 2 Friends Salt Works & Allied Industry vs. DCIT (TDS) 2. Since common issues are involved for both the years under consideration, both the appeals are being taken up together. We shall first take up the appeal

KANTILAL DE vs. HIBHAI FULETRA,RAJKOTVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 464/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the Asstt.Years 2011- 12 to 2013-14 respectively. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 4. The assessee has contended that he has declared more interest income in each assessment year. He has declared Rs.60,081/-, Rs.73,700/- and Rs.93,699/- as against proposed additions

KANTILAL DE vs. HIBHAI FULETRA,RAJKOTVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 462/RJT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the Asstt.Years 2011- 12 to 2013-14 respectively. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 4. The assessee has contended that he has declared more interest income in each assessment year. He has declared Rs.60,081/-, Rs.73,700/- and Rs.93,699/- as against proposed additions

KANTILAL DE vs. HIBHAI FULETRA,RAJKOTVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 463/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the Asstt.Years 2011- 12 to 2013-14 respectively. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 4. The assessee has contended that he has declared more interest income in each assessment year. He has declared Rs.60,081/-, Rs.73,700/- and Rs.93,699/- as against proposed additions

THE ITO, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR vs. SMT. SHITALBEN SAURABH VORA,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 651/RJT/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, DR

Section 194JSection 36Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 48Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

TDS u/s.194J for payment made for laboratory testing charges. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the profit on sale of Rs.5,52,499/- as business income and also not allowed the indexation benefit u/s.48 of the act and also taxed at higher rate. 6. That Learned Assessing Officer has wrongly assessed interest income of Rs.1

M/S. SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. ,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DCIT, SURENDRANAGR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 262/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, DR

Section 194JSection 36Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 48Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

TDS u/s.194J for payment made for laboratory testing charges. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the profit on sale of Rs.5,52,499/- as business income and also not allowed the indexation benefit u/s.48 of the act and also taxed at higher rate. 6. That Learned Assessing Officer has wrongly assessed interest income of Rs.1