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.

12 results for “TDS”+ Section 220clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi580 Patna469 Mumbai379 Bangalore145 Pune127 Hyderabad95 Karnataka91 Chennai87 Cochin82 Visakhapatnam64 Ahmedabad60 Jaipur59 Kolkata54 Indore47 Raipur35 Lucknow34 Chandigarh33 Nagpur19 Cuttack12 Rajkot12 Jodhpur10 Dehradun10 Kerala8 Agra6 Surat5 Amritsar5 Ranchi4 SC2 Varanasi2 Panaji2 Guwahati1 Rajasthan1 Calcutta1 Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 22017 Section 20114 Addition to Income9 Section 119(2)(a)7 Section 149(1)(b)7 TDS7 Section 1485 Section 1515 Section 2215 Section 271(1)(c)

SHRI SHITALBHAI RASIKLAL RAVANI & SMT. BHAVNABEN SHITALBHAI RAVANI ,RAJKOT vs. THE CHIEF CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the applicants are dismissed

ITA 23/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Us, The Same Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R

Section 119(2)(a)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220

TDS, Ahmedabad dated 20-12-2019, in proceedings under section 119(2)(a) r.w.s. 201(1A) and 220(2A) of the Income

SMT. BHAVNABEN SHITALBHAI RAVANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO(TDS-2), RAJKOT

4

Transfer Pricing3

Survey u/s 133A3

In the result, both the appeals of the applicants are dismissed

ITA 22/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Us, The Same Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R

Section 119(2)(a)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220

TDS, Ahmedabad dated 20-12-2019, in proceedings under section 119(2)(a) r.w.s. 201(1A) and 220(2A) of the Income

SHRI SHITALBHAI RASIKLAL RAVANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO(TDS)-2, RAJKOT

Accordingly, in our considered view, the present appeal is not maintainable and hence the present appeal is being dismissed as non- maintainable

ITA 21/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 119(2)(a)Section 194Section 194lSection 201Section 201(1)Section 220

TDS)”), Ahmedabad in Letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2019- 20/1022759459(1) vide order dated 20.12.2019 passed for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeals:- “a. Whether on the fact and in circumstances of the case, an original order under Section 119(2)(a) read with Section 201(1) (IA) and Section 220

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

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

ITA 947/RJT/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R

TDS certificate and that claimed as job work income. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. It is therefore prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. That

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

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

ITA 306/RJT/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R

TDS certificate and that claimed as job work income. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. It is therefore prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. That

M/S COBRA KCL JV,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, TDS- CIRCLE,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 209/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143Section 220Section 221Section 221(1)

TDS between 7 to 20 days and in certain occasions it is between 15 days to 5 months. Thus, the Ld. DR submitted that the penalty under Section 221 of the Act was rightly imposed on the assessee. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 287/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

220 CTR 410 (Delhi); iv) Ravi Marketing P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 519 (Cal); v) Sassoon J. David & Co. P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979) 1 taxman 485 (SC); vi) Jamna Auto industries Vs. CIT, (2008) 167 TAXMAN 192 (P&H HC) Finally, he contended that the TPO had categorically held that no adverse inference was to be drawn with regard

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 85/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

220 CTR 410 (Delhi); iv) Ravi Marketing P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 519 (Cal); v) Sassoon J. David & Co. P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979) 1 taxman 485 (SC); vi) Jamna Auto industries Vs. CIT, (2008) 167 TAXMAN 192 (P&H HC) Finally, he contended that the TPO had categorically held that no adverse inference was to be drawn with regard

AHLSTROM FIBERCOMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

220 CTR 410 (Delhi); iv) Ravi Marketing P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 519 (Cal); v) Sassoon J. David & Co. P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979) 1 taxman 485 (SC); vi) Jamna Auto industries Vs. CIT, (2008) 167 TAXMAN 192 (P&H HC) Finally, he contended that the TPO had categorically held that no adverse inference was to be drawn with regard

SHIV EXTRUSION,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 646/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Extrusion Vs. Income Tax Officer Plot No.3978 Phase Iiiroad Income Tax Office, Ito Ward No.-R Dared, Jamnagar 2(10), Jamnagar, Income 361004, Gujarat, India, Jamnagar Tax Office, Shiv Smruti, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, Gujarat, 361008, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkfs7199F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 151ASection 250

220/- to invoke Section 149(1)(b). The NFAC itself conceded the settled legal position that only the profit embedded in such sales is taxable, not the entire turnover. Since the final addition sustained (Rs. 7,94,224/-) is conclusively below the Rs. 50 lakh thereshold required by Section 149(1)(b), the jurisdiction assumed by the AO ab initio

SHRI ANILKUMAR AMARNATH AGARWAL,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 73/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumaramarnathagarwal Vs. Ito, Ward-1 27/2, Panchvatisociety Jamnagar. Nr.Gaushala Jamnagar 361 008. Gujarat. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)

TDS on the same. Accordingly, this interest income was added to his income and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated thereon. Thereafter, penalty was levied by the AO ,amounting to Rs.1,66,220

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 260/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, C.I.T.D.R

Section 36Section 40Section 43(5)

section 43(5). It is immaterial whether transaction is carried out at the recognized stock exchange or not. Even the circular of CBDT cited in the assessment order states that once it is established that the assessee has entered in the transaction of the commodity that they deal the other technical details have no material impact. Hence, this reasoning