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.

197 results for “TDS”+ Section 10(20)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,315Mumbai3,258Bangalore1,719Chennai1,135Kolkata796Pune710Hyderabad637Ahmedabad606Indore450Jaipur412Chandigarh335Raipur259Cochin254Karnataka237Surat197Visakhapatnam188Cuttack170Nagpur142Rajkot122Lucknow88Jabalpur88Amritsar72Jodhpur52Dehradun50Ranchi46Guwahati42Allahabad35Agra31Panaji30Telangana30Patna29SC17Varanasi13Kerala10Calcutta8Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan5Punjab & Haryana2Uttarakhand2Gauhati1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 234E76Addition to Income75Section 143(3)72TDS50Section 254(1)41Section 200A41Section 26340Disallowance39Section 6836Section 271(1)(c)

DHANSUKHBHAI PARAGJIBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 1021/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1021/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dhansukhbhai Deputy Commissioner Of Paragjibhai Patel, Income-Tax, 143, Brahaman Faliya, Circle - 2(3) Surat Dindoli Udhna 394210 Pan: Avdpp7007 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(37)Section 143Section 148Section 77

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land was put under Reservation for Sewage Treatment

SHRI DINESHBHAI VITTALBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SURAT

Showing 1–20 of 197 · Page 1 of 10

...
25
Section 14821
Deduction16

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 970/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.970/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dineshbhai Vittalbhai Income Tax Officer, Patel, Ward- 2(3)(7), Surat 6/1261, Bhut Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat Pan: Aatwpp 3597J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(37)Section 143Section 148Section 77

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land was put under Reservation for Sewage Treatment

SHRI GOPALBHAI H. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 552/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

VASANTBHAI MOHANBHAI BHANDHARI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1690/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

PREMILABEN M. BHANDARI,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1691/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

SHRI BALWANTRAY M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 453/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

SHRI NATVARBHAI K. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 624/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

SHRI CHAMPAKBHAI K. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 626/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

SHRI AMBUBHAI C. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1567/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

SHRI SATISHBHAI M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1566/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

SHRI ISHWARBHAI M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1562/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

SHRI DINESHCHANDRA C. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1563/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

NARESH M. BHANDARI,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1692/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

SHRI PRADIPKUMAR A. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1572/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

SHRI BABUBHAI J. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1569/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

SHRI JAYANTIBHAI AMBARAM PATEL (HUF),,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 518/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

SHRI SAMEERKUMAR J. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1568/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

SHRI GAMANBHAI K. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 625/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

SHRI HASMUKHBHAI K. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 623/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under

SHRI MOHANBHAI M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1571/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

20 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 and section 77 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC) for the public purpose by which it was conveyed that it was a case of compulsory acquisition. The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not debited the fact that the subject land Page 6 of 15 was put under