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 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai533Delhi392Bangalore245Kolkata72Hyderabad60Ahmedabad52Chennai35Karnataka27Pune24Jaipur23Raipur21Agra17Indore14Chandigarh12Dehradun10Jodhpur7Visakhapatnam6Lucknow6Nagpur6Rajkot6Surat5Cochin5Allahabad4Jabalpur3Guwahati2Telangana2Amritsar1Cuttack1Patna1SC1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 2636Section 143(3)5Section 143(2)4Addition to Income4Section 234A3Section 1483TDS3Disallowance3Penalty3Section 147

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 929/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 274Section 43BSection 68

TDS amounting to Rs. 57,298/-.\n(4). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition amounting to Rs.\n25,35,850/- on account of difference in receipts as per books of accounts and\nform 26AS.\n(5). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 30,50,000/-\non account of unexplained cash

2
Section 1442
Section 682

ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUJ-W-201-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 731/RJT/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.731/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Bakul Ganatra, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C 3. Brief facts of the Case that the assessee is a regular assessee. It is a mutual association (AOP) working for the common issues of consulting civil engineers. It is a non-trading and a non-profit organization and does not share the income. Thus the rules of mutuality principle are fully applicable to this

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

234C of the Act” 3. Brief facts of the case that the assessee is a firm. The assessee has not filed his return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. However, the assessee has made following transaction, during the year; 1. Remittance to non resident to a foreign company (Form 15CA) Rs.50,61,600/- 2. TDS return – other interest (section

AKSHAR JEWELLERS,JUNAGADH vs. DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/RJT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2023-24
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 270A

234C of the I.T.\nAct, 1961.\n6.That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law.\n7.The assessee craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of\nappeals.\n3. Brief facts, as discernible from the orders of lower authorities are that the\nassessee is a firm and it has filed

M/S WESTERN INDIA CERAMICS P. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, ground number 4 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 14/RJT/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

234C is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad has erred in dismissing the appeal and whereby upholding the initiating penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. Your applicant reserves the right in addition or alteration in the grounds of appeal

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