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.

27 results for “TDS”+ Section 206clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi295Mumbai261Chennai235Karnataka115Bangalore99Raipur91Kolkata85Chandigarh84Ahmedabad66Jaipur52Pune42Hyderabad33Visakhapatnam32Rajkot27Jabalpur23Indore20Dehradun13Amritsar13Nagpur8Cuttack7Himachal Pradesh6Cochin6Lucknow6Surat5Allahabad5Agra5Jodhpur5Telangana4SC3Ranchi2Calcutta1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 234E38Section 206C20Section 206C(6)19TDS17Section 20616Addition to Income14Section 206C(7)12Disallowance11Section 2638Section 143(3)

SHRI NIRMAL RAJENDRA JAGETIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO (TDS-3), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(3)Section 206C(5)Section 234E

206(C) of the Act dated 17/3/2017. 9. The assessing officer also noticed that as per the provisions of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, any assessee, who fails to prepare and deliver a statement within prescribed time to the prescribed authority, is liable to pay an amount by way of fees for the default period. Here in this

JAYSUKH NANJI KORADIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

6
Section 36(1)(iii)5
Set Off of Losses4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 337/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.336 & 337/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer. Jaysukh Nanji Koradiya, Tds-3, Vs. Plot No.426/1, Jamnagar. Nr.Geb Office, Gidc, Stu, Jamnagar.

Section 200Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 234E

TDS), Jamnagar treating it as non-maintainable. He ought to have admitted the appeal and decide case on merit since Ld.AO has treated assessee as ‘’assessee in default’’ u/s.206C(6)/(7) specially when assessee was not liable to file TCS return as required by section 206C. The issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred

JAYSUKH NANJI KORADIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 336/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.336 & 337/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer. Jaysukh Nanji Koradiya, Tds-3, Vs. Plot No.426/1, Jamnagar. Nr.Geb Office, Gidc, Stu, Jamnagar.

Section 200Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 234E

TDS), Jamnagar treating it as non-maintainable. He ought to have admitted the appeal and decide case on merit since Ld.AO has treated assessee as ‘’assessee in default’’ u/s.206C(6)/(7) specially when assessee was not liable to file TCS return as required by section 206C. The issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred

RAKESH BASANTILAL LADDHA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

ITA 351/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.DR
Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 234E

206(C) every person being a seller at the time of debiting of the amount payable by the buyer to the accounts of buyer or at the time of receipt of such amount from such buyer in cash or by issuing cheque, collect an amount from such buyer specified in colum-2 of the table attached to the section

JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

ITA 352/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.DR
Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 234E

206(C) every person being a seller at the time of debiting of the amount payable by the buyer to the accounts of buyer or at the time of receipt of such amount from such buyer in cash or by issuing cheque, collect an amount from such buyer specified in colum-2 of the table attached to the section

PARAG MAKANBHAI PARSANA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

ITA 353/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.DR
Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 234E

206(C) every person being a seller at the time of debiting of the amount payable by the buyer to the accounts of buyer or at the time of receipt of such amount from such buyer in cash or by issuing cheque, collect an amount from such buyer specified in colum-2 of the table attached to the section

VISHAL ENTERPRISE, ,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

ITA 347/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.DR
Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 234E

206(C) every person being a seller at the time of debiting of the amount payable by the buyer to the accounts of buyer or at the time of receipt of such amount from such buyer in cash or by issuing cheque, collect an amount from such buyer specified in colum-2 of the table attached to the section

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 54/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

TDS) [2015] 62 taxmann.com 59/70 SOT 167 (Bang.-Trib), the ITAT observed as below:- "Section 206C(1A) mandates that any person responsible for collecting tax under section 206C(1) need not do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for use in manufacturing, processing or producing articles or things. It does

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 51/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

TDS) [2015] 62 taxmann.com 59/70 SOT 167 (Bang.-Trib), the ITAT observed as below:- "Section 206C(1A) mandates that any person responsible for collecting tax under section 206C(1) need not do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for use in manufacturing, processing or producing articles or things. It does

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 53/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

TDS) [2015] 62 taxmann.com 59/70 SOT 167 (Bang.-Trib), the ITAT observed as below:- "Section 206C(1A) mandates that any person responsible for collecting tax under section 206C(1) need not do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for use in manufacturing, processing or producing articles or things. It does

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 52/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

TDS) [2015] 62 taxmann.com 59/70 SOT 167 (Bang.-Trib), the ITAT observed as below:- "Section 206C(1A) mandates that any person responsible for collecting tax under section 206C(1) need not do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for use in manufacturing, processing or producing articles or things. It does

PUNABHAI G. PARDAVA,,DHARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4),, AMRELI

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

ITA 137/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194CSection 40

sections 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) 0f the Act, that the said provisions are intended to enforce due compliance of the requirement of other provisions of the Act and to ensure proper collection of tax as also transparency in dealings of the parties. The necessity of disallowance comes into operation only when default of the nature specified

M/S SHYAM ENTERPRISE,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

ITA 324/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Income Tax Officer, M/S Shyam Enterprise, Ward 1(3), Vs. Shop No.3, Prasang Complex, Rajkot. 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot.

Section 133(6)Section 244A

section 133(6) of the Act. Secondly, the amount of TDS was not reflecting on the database of the income tax Department. Asstt. Year 2009-10 5 Accordingly, the AO did not allow the credit of the TDS amount claimed by the assessee. 9. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has confirmed the order

KANTABEN VAJUBHAI PAGHADAL,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 250Section 56

206 ITR 727 (Bom.) and Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 209 ITR 277 (Bom.). We note that Ld. Pr. CIT has passed impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act, relying upon order of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjeet Singh (HUF) vs. Union of India (Supra). However, with

INCOME TAX OFFICER,TDS-3, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR vs. SAMPATLAL BADRILAL SOMANI, JAMNAGAR

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

ITA 298/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.298/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Tds – 3, Vs. Sampatlal Badrilal Somani 2Nd Floor, Taranjali Proprietor Of S. B. Metal Udyog, Buildign, P. N. Marg, Plot No. 4/A/1, Nr. Kriti Weight Jamnagar – 361008 Bridge, Shanker Tekri, Udyognagar, Jamnagar – 361004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhps0245D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Agarwal &
Section 143(3)Section 206CSection 206C(3)Section 206C(6)

206(C) (7) of the Act. A separate penalty proceedings u/s 272(A)(2)(k) was also proposed by the assessing officer to the prescribed authority. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, under section 206C(6) & 206C(7) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 360/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.” 8. Apart from the above citation, the authorised representative has cited the following judgements to buttress his arguments that the disallowance

M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 315/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.” 8. Apart from the above citation, the authorised representative has cited the following judgements to buttress his arguments that the disallowance

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S DML EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 27/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. N. Maurya, CIT DR
Section 73(1)

TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared to be an assessee in default u/s. 201 of the Act and no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.” 8. Apart from the above citation, the authorised representative has cited the following judgements to buttress his arguments that the disallowance

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)

TDS was deductible. The failure of the assessee in this behalf entails addition in view of AAR decision in the case of SKF Boilers & Dryers Pvt. Ltd reported in (2012) 15 taxmann.com 325. Thus, the assessing officer made the addition of Rs. 1,76,35,013/-. 36. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition

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)

TDS was deductible. The failure of the assessee in this behalf entails addition in view of AAR decision in the case of SKF Boilers & Dryers Pvt. Ltd reported in (2012) 15 taxmann.com 325. Thus, the assessing officer made the addition of Rs. 1,76,35,013/-. 36. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition