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.

33 results for “TDS”+ Section 90(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,700Delhi1,564Bangalore685Chennai523Kolkata406Cochin268Hyderabad236Ahmedabad195Jaipur163Indore161Raipur152Karnataka123Chandigarh89Pune86Surat67Nagpur53Lucknow46Cuttack36Visakhapatnam33Rajkot33Guwahati24Ranchi20Jodhpur17Telangana13SC11Dehradun11Amritsar9Patna9Agra5Varanasi3Panaji3Jabalpur2Calcutta2Punjab & Haryana2

Key Topics

Section 143(3)23TDS22Addition to Income21Section 4017Disallowance14Section 26313Section 20112Section 206C8Section 2507Limitation/Time-bar

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

2)(a) r.w.s. 201(1A) and 220(2A) of the Act. It was submitted that Ld. CCIT(TDS) disposed of the application Shri Shitalbhai Rasiklal Ravani vs. CCIT Asst.Year –2016-17 filed by the assessee and his wife requesting for waiver of interest imposed by the TDS officer for non-deduction of taxes at source towards purchase of property. However

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2

7
Section 194C6
Section 14A6

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. Therefore, the disallowance made by the assessing officer cannot be sustained. The addition made at Rs.67,84,807/- on account of disallowance of payments

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. Therefore, the disallowance made by the assessing officer cannot be sustained. The addition made at Rs.67,84,807/- on account of disallowance of payments

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. Therefore, the disallowance made by the assessing officer cannot be sustained. The addition made at Rs.67,84,807/- on account of disallowance of payments

VINAY INFRATECH PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 101/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 101/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S Vinay Infratech Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of 110-112, Silver Chamber, Vs. Income Tax, Tagore Road, Rajkot-1, Rajkot. Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

90,295/- hand (e) Details of cash deposits made during de-monetization period is following table along with certificate of bank for the same. Sr.No. Name of Bank and Date of Amount Description Remarks Account number deposit deposited of notes deposited A B C D E F A.Y. 2017-18 12 1 Oriental Bank

M/S. FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALIED INDUSTRIES,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE , RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year

ITA 49/RJT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thacker, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A Nos. 49 & 50 /Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page No 2 Friends Salt Works & Allied Industry vs. DCIT (TDS) 2. Since common issues are involved for both the years under consideration, both the appeals are being taken up together. We shall first take up the appeal

M/S. FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALIED INDUSTRIES,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE , RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year

ITA 50/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thacker, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A Nos. 49 & 50 /Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page No 2 Friends Salt Works & Allied Industry vs. DCIT (TDS) 2. Since common issues are involved for both the years under consideration, both the appeals are being taken up together. We shall first take up the appeal

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

M/S. RADHE EXIM PVT. LTD. ,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 75/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.75/Rjt/2021 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 M/S. Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Plot No.G-557, Vs. Of Income-Tax-1, Gidc Metoda, Rajkot. Kalawad Road, Metoda, Rajkot-360021. Pan: Aadcr1763P

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

90,333/- only. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the receipt of unsecured loan from the person not filing the return of income. As such, the assessee during the year under consideration has shown receipt of unsecured loan for ₹ 25 lacs and ₹ 1.45 crores from the parties namely M/s Hi-can Industries

BAN LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 202/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.202/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ban Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ban House, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Income Tax-1, Nagar, Gondal Road (South), Rajkot Rajkot-360004 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8999C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263

90,74,553/- i.e. the average investment). The ld. PCIT also noticed that assessee has not maintained separate accounts to earn exempt and non-exempt income. In the absence of separate accounts by way of which the management and administrative expenditure could be segregated, there is no dispute and there cannot be any doubt that some expenditure is incurred

AMITSINH NANABHA RANA,,WANKANER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, MORBI

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

ITA 107/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2012-13 Amitsinh Nababha Rana Ito, Ward-1 At. Divijay Nagar Vs Morbi. Wankaner. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta. Sr.DR
Section 194C

2 reasons. Firstly, there was no documentary evidence in support of such expenses and therefore the same cannot be allowed as deduction under the provisions of section 37 of the Act. Secondly, the assessee has not deducted the TDS on such expenses amounting to 6 Rs.12,01,860under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus

BHARAT NARSHIBHAI PATEL,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

ITA 516/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Mistry, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 271CSection 40Section 40(8)

TDS an amount paid to deductee and, in turn, deductee also hasn’t offered to tax income embedded in such amount The penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided under section 271C and, therefore, section 40(a)(i) isn’t attracted to the same. Hence, an assessee could not be penalized under section 40(a)(ia) when

FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALLIED INDS.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE GANDHIDHAM,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 99/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puglia, Ld. (CIT) DR
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 29.12.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows (ITA No. 99/Rjt/2023- A.Y. 2015-16) : “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,63,690/- being the depreciation claimed

FRIENDS SALT WORKS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES,GANDHIDHAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 169/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puglia, Ld. (CIT) DR
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), vide order dated 29.12.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows (ITA No. 99/Rjt/2023- A.Y. 2015-16) : “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,63,690/- being the depreciation claimed

SHRI VIJAYDAN KISHORDAN GADHAVI,BHUJ KUTCH vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE(TDS), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 437/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel and Astha Maniar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

90,166/-. The assessee has also been treated, as assessee in default, under section 201 of the Act and therefore assessing officer held that assessee is liable to pay interest under section 201(1A) the Act, at Rs.8,71,558/-.The Ld. Counsel argued that if the assessee has less than 10 Trucks, then the provisions of Section 194C

SHRI VIJAYDAN KISHORDAN GADHAVI,BHUJ KUTCH vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE(TDS), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 438/RJT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel and Astha Maniar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

90,166/-. The assessee has also been treated, as assessee in default, under section 201 of the Act and therefore assessing officer held that assessee is liable to pay interest under section 201(1A) the Act, at Rs.8,71,558/-.The Ld. Counsel argued that if the assessee has less than 10 Trucks, then the provisions of Section 194C

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

2 an addition of Rs.28,080/- under Section 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

GOPALLAL RAMPRASAD KABRA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, TDS-3, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is being restored to the file of ITO (TDS) with the above directions

ITA 243/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal. Total Tax Effect 28,72,848/-

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)Section 250

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A No. 243/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Gopallal Ramprasad Kabra vs. ITO Sr. No. Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal (see note below) 1 The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts of the case the assessee is a Limited Company engaged in construction business, executing Infrastructure Projects. During the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed by the Assessing Officer the assessee has shown gross contract receipt of ITO vs. Jitendra

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

2, Act) 2014 is to be treated Punambhai Ghughabhai Pardava vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2013-14 as retrospective and the ratio of the decision will be squarely applicable to the present assessment year also. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue supports the order of the lower authorities and requested to confirm the addition. 7. We have given