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 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi137Mumbai105Chennai92Chandigarh72Kolkata71Ahmedabad56Bangalore42Jaipur25Hyderabad20Pune16Guwahati13Indore10Jodhpur9Surat8Lucknow8Raipur7Rajkot6Cuttack5Karnataka4Varanasi4Rajasthan3Visakhapatnam3Nagpur3Cochin2Dehradun2Patna1Amritsar1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)6Addition to Income6TDS4Disallowance4Section 143(2)3Section 36(1)(va)3Section 43B2Section 143(1)(a)2Section 139(1)2Section 271(1)(c)

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

36(1)(va) of the LT. Act, 1961.\n(3). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of interest on\ndelayed payment of 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

2
Section 402
Penalty2

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI MILANKUMAR M. POBARU,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 290/RJT/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajai Pratap Singh, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

36(1)(va) of the Act. Since it is a fact on record that the employees contribution of Rs.9028/- was deposited delayed as per the applicable provisions of law, the issue stands covered against the assessee. The disallowance of Rs.9028/- on account of delayed deposit of employee’s contribution to ESI is accordingly upheld. 15. Ground of appeal No.2

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ACIT, CIR.-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

ITA 166/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 166/Rjt/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner 202, Arpan Complex, Kalawad Vs Of Income-Tax, Road, Opp. Swami Narayan Circle-2(1), Temple, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot Pan : Aabcc 8197 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40a

36(1)(va) of the Act on the late payment of PF. Subsequently, a revision order dated 22.03.2018 was passed by the learned PCIT invoking provisions of Section 263 of the Act directing the Assessing Officer to verify the nature of payment made by the assessee- company to M/s. Parsoli Motors Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.2

RAVIRAJSINH KISHORSINH JADEJA,RAJKOT vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, grounds of Appeal raised by the appellant are hereby Dismissed

ITA 48/RJT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 48/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Ravirajsinh Kishorsinh Jadeja Vs. Adit Cpc 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 312 Silver Chambers, Tagore Road, Rajkot – 630002 (Gujrat) 48/1 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, House Rd, Uttarahali Hobli, Karnataka - 560100 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahjpj0961H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27 / 11 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20 / 01 /2026

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 03/12/2021, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, on dated 03/02/2020. Ravirajsinh Kishorsinh Jadeja The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: - 1

VRAJ AND VAJ CONSTRUCTION,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 179/RJT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

36(1)(va), disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) addition of short contract receipts and disallowance of depreciation on JCB machines. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings on the above disallowances and levied minimum penalty of Rs. 81,725/- being the tax sought to be evaded on concealed income. 3. Aggrieved against the same the assessee filed an appeal before

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)

va). 7. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 8. That the revenue craves leaves to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal. 9. It is therefore prayed that the order of the CIT(A), Jamnagar may kindly