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.

42 results for “TDS”+ Section 10(100)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,233Mumbai1,202Bangalore658Chennai421Kolkata269Hyderabad200Indore181Ahmedabad160Chandigarh155Karnataka135Jaipur130Pune112Raipur83Cochin66Cuttack44Surat42Visakhapatnam36Lucknow32Jabalpur26Amritsar23Nagpur22Rajkot19Guwahati18Telangana17Jodhpur16Agra14Dehradun14Patna14Panaji8Ranchi6SC6Varanasi5Rajasthan3Allahabad3Uttarakhand2Orissa1Kerala1

Key Topics

Addition to Income38Disallowance30Section 271(1)(c)22Section 254(1)21Section 143(3)18Bogus Purchases15Section 14412Section 80P(2)12TDS12Section 68

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL CO. PVT LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 541/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

section 194C of the Act, if a single payment does not exceed Rs.30,000/- or the total sum paid during the financial year does not exceed Rs.1 lakh, deduction of TDS u/s 190C is not required. However, it is not clear from the submission of the appellant that the daily wages and labour charges of Rs.8

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

11
Deduction11
Section 26310

SHRI BALAJI J BHAGNURE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 250/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2022 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Balaji J. Bhagnure Income Tax Officer, 98, Santkrupa Society, In Ward-2(3)(1) Aayakar Vs Lane Of Mahadev Mandir, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Godadara Devadh Road, Surat-395001 Godadara, Surat-394210 Pan No: Alkpb 8794 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.12.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 27.12.2022 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [For Short To As “Nfac/ Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 26.07.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 11.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Reopening Assessment By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The I.T. Act 1961. Sh. Balaji J Bhagnure 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The I.T. Act.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 254(1)Section 44ASection 68

TDS was made @ 10% under section 194C. The receipt is nominal and the income of assessee was below taxable limit. Thus, the issuance of notice under section 148 was not valid. 4. For non-compliance of notice of Assessing Officer, the assessee explained that assessee (he) is a small person and is not well versed with income tax matters. Therefore

SACH ELECTRO MECH PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 4 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 262/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court - Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.262/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sach Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd., V The Income Tax Officer, C/2, Maheshwari Apartment, S Ward-2(1)(2), Surat. Timaliyawad, Nanpura, . Surat – 395 001. [Pan: Aaics 8963 M] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Manish J.Shah – Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40Section 43B

TDS under section 37 and disallowance of Rs.61,883/- under section 14A of the Act. On appeal before ld. CIT(A), the action of the A.O. was upheld. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submissions of learned authorized representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned departmental representative

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHHLOK ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2018/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Shhlok Enterprise, Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat Block No.292, Plot No.135/B, Shhlok Arcede, Bamroli Road, Surat. Pan : Abufs8091E Appellant Respondednt

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

section 68 of ₹ 1.54 Crore. 3. The assessee also claimed and interest expenses on such unsecured loan of ₹ 13.79 lakhs. Since the loan was treated as bogus loan, consequent upon the interest expenses was also treated as non-genuine. 4. The assessing officer on further perusal of the survey report noted that assessee received booking amount of ₹ 4.81 Crore during

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

ITA 551/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P(2)

100% of tax sought to be evaded on such addition. The assessing officer levied / worked out penalty of Rs. 495,854/-. On appeal before ld CIT(A) the penalty was upheld. Considering the fact that in appeal for AY 2008- 09, we have deleted the penalty on disallowance made under Section 80P(2) of the Act, therefore, the penalty

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

ITA 550/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P(2)

100% of tax sought to be evaded on such addition. The assessing officer levied / worked out penalty of Rs. 495,854/-. On appeal before ld CIT(A) the penalty was upheld. Considering the fact that in appeal for AY 2008- 09, we have deleted the penalty on disallowance made under Section 80P(2) of the Act, therefore, the penalty

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

ITA 552/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P(2)

100% of tax sought to be evaded on such addition. The assessing officer levied / worked out penalty of Rs. 495,854/-. On appeal before ld CIT(A) the penalty was upheld. Considering the fact that in appeal for AY 2008- 09, we have deleted the penalty on disallowance made under Section 80P(2) of the Act, therefore, the penalty

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 181/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T. M/S J.K. Paper Ltd. Circle-1(1)(2), P.O. Central Pulp Mill, Vs. Surat. Fort Songadh, Surat. Pan : Aaact 6305 N Appellant Respondednt

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145ASection 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 40aSection 80I

100% of tax sought to be evaded. The Assessing office worked out the penalty of Rs. 4,45,50,780/- in his order dated 26.03.2018. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions on each

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), SURAT vs. M/S NYA INTERNATIONAL,, SURAT

In the result, ground nos

ITA 713/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.713/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.534/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2014-15) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2023

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 68

TDS which includes quarterly statement, challans of payment and form No. 27A along with FVU file generated, which shows the contention of the assessee to be correct. The assessing officer has not made any comments in the remand report on these facts submitted during the remand report proceedings. Therefore, ld CIT(A) deleted the of Rs.1,40,131/-. Based

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), SURAT vs. NYA INTERNATIONAL,, SURAT

In the result, ground nos

ITA 534/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.713/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.534/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2014-15) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2023

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 68

TDS which includes quarterly statement, challans of payment and form No. 27A along with FVU file generated, which shows the contention of the assessee to be correct. The assessing officer has not made any comments in the remand report on these facts submitted during the remand report proceedings. Therefore, ld CIT(A) deleted the of Rs.1,40,131/-. Based

SHRI ANIL G. KUMAWAT,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1384/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT vs. SHRI GYANCHAND SUGAMCHAND JAIN,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1521/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

SHRI NARESH R. PAREEK,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1392/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR LODHA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1380/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

SHRI SHARAD Y. JAIN,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1390/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL GHANSHYAMBHAI KUMAWAT,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1520/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

SHRI GYANCHAND & JAIN,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1387/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT vs. SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR LODHA,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1498/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

SHRI ANIL G. KUMAWAT,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1383/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL GHANSHYAMBHAI KUMAWAT,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1519/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission