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.

22 results for “TDS”+ Section 144clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai751 Delhi557 Bangalore310 Kolkata212 Chennai187 Hyderabad149 Ahmedabad136 Karnataka114 Pune111 Raipur106 Cochin93 Jaipur90 Chandigarh61 Surat47 Indore45 Lucknow39 Visakhapatnam28 Patna26 Rajkot22 Jodhpur20 Amritsar18 Nagpur16 Agra14 Jabalpur14 Cuttack11 Panaji7 Allahabad7 Guwahati6 SC5 Telangana5 Varanasi5 Calcutta3 Ranchi3 Dehradun2 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 4022 Addition to Income21 Section 14415 Section 14814 Disallowance14 Section 143(3)10 Section 1478 Section 36(1)(iii)8 TDS8 Section 263

SHRI LAKHMAN ARJAN KARMUR,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NETILNAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, we uphold the order of ld

ITA 147/RJT/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 194Section 194CSection 44A

TDS of " 1,27,507/-. However, the assessee did not file its return of income and subsequently assessment was completed under section 144

PARSHWA PRINTPACK PVT. LTD.,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

6

Section 142(1)5

ITA 248/RJT/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

TDS deducted etc. As far as the issue of retraction of statements by impugned parties and their subsequent filing of sworn affidavits alleging coercion and duress is concerned, i! is seen that the appellant has attempted to introduce the impugned sworn affidavits as additional evidences Apropos, to the discussions made m the preceding paras, it has been held'that

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 310/RJT/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

TDS deducted etc. As far as the issue of retraction of statements by impugned parties and their subsequent filing of sworn affidavits alleging coercion and duress is concerned, i! is seen that the appellant has attempted to introduce the impugned sworn affidavits as additional evidences Apropos, to the discussions made m the preceding paras, it has been held'that

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 311/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

TDS deducted etc. As far as the issue of retraction of statements by impugned parties and their subsequent filing of sworn affidavits alleging coercion and duress is concerned, i! is seen that the appellant has attempted to introduce the impugned sworn affidavits as additional evidences Apropos, to the discussions made m the preceding paras, it has been held'that

SHRI HARILAL LAXMIDAS VAISHNANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT/DCIT(INT. TAXN.), RAJKOT

In the result, in view of the discussion above and the facts placed on record before us, we are hereby allowing the appeal of the assessee

ITA 141/RJT/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 234ASection 274Section 69Section 69A

144 rws 144A, I do not find any infirmity as the AC) has followed the due process of law under the Income Tax Act and that adequate opportunities were provided to the assessee by way of various statutory notices and also final show causes on the issues which have been added by the AO towards determination of total income

SHIVAMY OVERSWAS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (1)(5), RAJKOT

The appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 393/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.393/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Shivamy Overseas (India) Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Ltd. 1(1)(5) Shop No. 1, New Enpire Aaykar Bhavan, Race Ring Road, Building, Nr. Indira Circle, Rajkot - 360001 University Road Rajkot – 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalcs8171Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 144Section 250

section 144 vide order dated 30.03.2015 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as followed: 1) Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing appellate order u/s. 250 of the Act, which is bad in law and hence liable to be quashed and set aside as null and void

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. , GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot08 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri K.L. Solanki, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 40

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “The grounds of appeal mentioned herein under are without prejudice to each other. 1.0 Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-l, Rajkot has erred in law in confirming the disallowance

M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. ,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot08 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri K.L. Solanki, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 40

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “The grounds of appeal mentioned herein under are without prejudice to each other. 1.0 Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-l, Rajkot has erred in law in confirming the disallowance

THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (5),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. JITENDRA G. PATEL PROJECT LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 252/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 40

TDS from sub-contract payments, the amount of Rs.l,49,14,535/- was disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee has claimed expenses to the tune of Rs.30,97,972/- in Profit & Loss account. The assessee was asked to produce books of account and bills/vouchers of expenses to verify the expenses

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)

144 (SC) Para 5 Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income-tax authorities Power to transfer cases (Conditions precedent) - Assessee's income-tax/assessment file was transferred from Assessing Officer, Tamil Nadu to Assessing Officer, Kerala - Assessee challenged transfer No agreement between two Jurisdictional Commissioners as required for transfer of case was shown by revenue - It was only

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)

144 (SC) Para 5 Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income-tax authorities Power to transfer cases (Conditions precedent) - Assessee's income-tax/assessment file was transferred from Assessing Officer, Tamil Nadu to Assessing Officer, Kerala - Assessee challenged transfer No agreement between two Jurisdictional Commissioners as required for transfer of case was shown by revenue - It was only

AMARDEEP EXPORTS,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 1(3), JNR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 475/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Tejas Ganatra, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 164ASection 234A

TDS return – other interest (section 164A) Rs. 1,64,527/- 3. Cash transaction of Rs. 100000 and more Rs. 15,00,000/- 4. Shipping bill for exports for value exceeding Rs. 5 Lakh (Custom export) Rs. 10,21,87,070/- Total Rs. 10,89,13,197/- 4. The case was reopened for reassessment u/s 147 of the Act. A Notice

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LIMITED.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 404/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 I.T.A No. 404/Rjt/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 DCIT vs. M/s. Backbone Projects Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2013-14. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Company engaged in the business of Civil

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)

Section 36(1)(iii)

144 of the Act. This aspect has completely been overlooked by the assessing officer while making the addition. 11. The learned CIT(A) also noticed that it is a mystery as to how the assessing officer has arrived at the figure of "reasonable loss at 10% particularly when even the independent experts have opined that the washing/manufacturing loss is likely

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 233/RJT/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)

Section 36(1)(iii)

144 of the Act. This aspect has completely been overlooked by the assessing officer while making the addition. 11. The learned CIT(A) also noticed that it is a mystery as to how the assessing officer has arrived at the figure of "reasonable loss at 10% particularly when even the independent experts have opined that the washing/manufacturing loss is likely

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)

Section 36(1)(iii)

144 of the Act. This aspect has completely been overlooked by the assessing officer while making the addition. 11. The learned CIT(A) also noticed that it is a mystery as to how the assessing officer has arrived at the figure of "reasonable loss at 10% particularly when even the independent experts have opined that the washing/manufacturing loss is likely

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)

Section 36(1)(iii)

144 of the Act. This aspect has completely been overlooked by the assessing officer while making the addition. 11. The learned CIT(A) also noticed that it is a mystery as to how the assessing officer has arrived at the figure of "reasonable loss at 10% particularly when even the independent experts have opined that the washing/manufacturing loss is likely

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 234/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)

Section 36(1)(iii)

144 of the Act. This aspect has completely been overlooked by the assessing officer while making the addition. 11. The learned CIT(A) also noticed that it is a mystery as to how the assessing officer has arrived at the figure of "reasonable loss at 10% particularly when even the independent experts have opined that the washing/manufacturing loss is likely

SHREE KARMAL KOTADA JUTH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT

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

ITA 328/RJT/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Mar 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.328/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Karmal Kotadajuth Seva Vs. The Ito Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot. Sahakarimandali Limited. Karmal Kotada, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271B

144 r.w.s. 254 on 25.09.2021 determining total income at Rs. 30,58,560/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act were also initiated vide notice u/s 271B r.w.s. 274 dated 26.09.2021 and imposed penalty under section 271B of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. SHREE KARMAL KOTDA JUTH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED. 9. Aggrieved

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

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

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

TDS amount Rs.3,57,008/- and repayment of unsecured loan of Rs.3,33,744/- net closing balance of unsecured loan accepted during the F.Y.2017-18 of Rs.8,36,60,540/-. The contention of the assessee is accepted and unsecured loan for the year under consideration is taken amounting to Rs.8,36,60,540/-, Therefore, such cash credit is remained unexplained