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.

196 results for “TDS”+ Section 12clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,597Delhi4,458Bangalore2,309Chennai1,588Kolkata1,154Pune660Hyderabad565Ahmedabad525Jaipur391Raipur374Indore356Karnataka302Cochin284Chandigarh269Nagpur230Surat196Visakhapatnam180Rajkot147Lucknow112Amritsar84Cuttack79Jodhpur68Patna56Ranchi53Dehradun47Agra45Panaji39Telangana38Guwahati34Jabalpur24SC23Allahabad18Calcutta15Varanasi14Kerala13Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Punjab & Haryana5Uttarakhand3Orissa2J&K2Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)79Addition to Income79TDS51Section 26349Section 6840Section 14834Disallowance28Section 14425Section 271(1)(c)25Section 254(1)

DESAI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, VALSAD

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

ITA 505/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri S.B.G. Mahapatra, Sr.D.R
Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS ITA No.505 to 526/SRT/2018 (AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 Desai Infrastructure Private Limited statement furnished by the assessee in all quarters were prior to 01-06- 2015. 8. We find that in case of Rajesh Kourani Vs UOI (supra) the Hon'ble High court while considering the constitutional validity of Section 200A held that fee prescribed under section

DESAI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, VALSAD

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

Showing 1–20 of 196 · Page 1 of 10

...
25
Section 14721
Deduction19
ITA 506/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri S.B.G. Mahapatra, Sr.D.R
Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS ITA No.505 to 526/SRT/2018 (AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 Desai Infrastructure Private Limited statement furnished by the assessee in all quarters were prior to 01-06- 2015. 8. We find that in case of Rajesh Kourani Vs UOI (supra) the Hon'ble High court while considering the constitutional validity of Section 200A held that fee prescribed under section

AKSHAR INFRA,BHARUCH vs. ITO(TDS), BHARUCN, BHARUCH

In the result, the ground Nos

ITA 276/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.276/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Akshar Infra Income Tax Officer (Tds), Bharuch, Hari Kunj, R.S.No.347, Old N.H.S. Vs Station Road, Bharuch- Nr. Samrajya School, 356069 Andada, Ankleshwar, Bharuch-393001 Pan No. Abbfa 5016 E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)

TDS as per the provision of Section 194-IA of the Act. The explanation of assessee was that consideration of each co-owner was less than Rs.50.00 lakh cannot be considered when the aggregate value of sale consideration was more than threshold limit of Rs.50.00 lakh. On the plea of Ld. AR for the assessee that matter may be restored

SHRI BIPINCHANDRA HIRALAL THAKKAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6),, SURAT

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

ITA 2126/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2126/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Ay.: (2013-14) Shri Bipinchandra Hiralal Thakkar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.60/61, Hari Ichha Society, Ward-1(2)6, Surat. Udhna Bhestan Road, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpt1432D (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah- CAFor Respondent: Miss Anupama Singla – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40Section 44A

section 44AB and liabilities of TDS arise at the beginning of the year. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.11,59,064/- (Interest Expenses Rs.10,12

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 38/SRT/2020[QUARTER-II 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld.AR for the assessee in support of his submission also relied certain case law of Hon'ble Apex Court, as recorded earlier paras. 10. On careful perusal of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Rajesh Kourani

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 40/SRT/2020[QUARTER-IV 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld.AR for the assessee in support of his submission also relied certain case law of Hon'ble Apex Court, as recorded earlier paras. 10. On careful perusal of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Rajesh Kourani

KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 66/SRT/2020[2014-15 QUARTER 2]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld.AR for the assessee in support of his submission also relied certain case law of Hon'ble Apex Court, as recorded earlier paras. 10. On careful perusal of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Rajesh Kourani

KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 65/SRT/2020[2014-15 QUARTER 1]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld.AR for the assessee in support of his submission also relied certain case law of Hon'ble Apex Court, as recorded earlier paras. 10. On careful perusal of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Rajesh Kourani

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 39/SRT/2020[QUARTER-III 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld.AR for the assessee in support of his submission also relied certain case law of Hon'ble Apex Court, as recorded earlier paras. 10. On careful perusal of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Rajesh Kourani

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 64/SRT/2020[2015-16 QUARTER 4]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld.AR for the assessee in support of his submission also relied certain case law of Hon'ble Apex Court, as recorded earlier paras. 10. On careful perusal of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Rajesh Kourani

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 61/SRT/2020[2015-16 QUARTER 1]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld.AR for the assessee in support of his submission also relied certain case law of Hon'ble Apex Court, as recorded earlier paras. 10. On careful perusal of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Rajesh Kourani

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 63/SRT/2020[215-16 QUARTER 3]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld.AR for the assessee in support of his submission also relied certain case law of Hon'ble Apex Court, as recorded earlier paras. 10. On careful perusal of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Rajesh Kourani

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 62/SRT/2020[2015-16 QUARTER 2]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld.AR for the assessee in support of his submission also relied certain case law of Hon'ble Apex Court, as recorded earlier paras. 10. On careful perusal of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Rajesh Kourani

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

12 Koes Construction (TDS Deducted) BANPK9072K 36,800 13 Mangukiya Brothers Project Pvt Ltd AALCM5099B 5,492,000 (TDS Deducted) 14 Mehulbhai Jaysukhbhai Vekariya (CR) AWZPV5715A 123,000 (TDS Deducted) 15 Nitin R Bhavani (TDS Deducted) AQHPB2009D 5,113,964 16 NR EPC Project Private Limited (TDS AAFCN2999F 27,818,478 Deducted) 17 Prakash Patel (TDS Deducted) CTGPP720SK

SHREE ABHISHEK BIPINBHAI NAIK,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

ITA 12/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Abhishek Bipinbhai Naik I.T.O., (Prop. Of M/S Shivbhole Services), Ward 1(2)(1), Vs. House No. 1, Desai Faliyu, At Po Surat. Vaktana, Tal, Choryasi Via Sachin, Surat-394230. Pan No. Agppn 5994 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271ASection 69A

12,441/- without considering the submission made by the appellant and rejecting the explanation and requisite documents already submitted by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. Abhishek Bipinbhai Naik Vs ITO 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,74,000/- u/s.69A r.w.s.115

SANJAY MAHADEV KHOPKAR,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-3(2), , SURAT

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

ITA 91/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Sanjay Mahadev Khopkar, A.C.I.T., C-102, Sanskar Jyot, Gaon Devi Circle-3(2), Vs. Road, More Tower Dombivilli West Surat. Kalyan, Thakurli Thane, Maharastra-421201. Pan No. Agipk 1744 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 205Section 254(1)

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (in short, the ld. CIT(A))/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 29/03/2022 for the Assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal

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 of Rs. 3,694/- under section 194C. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 738,882/-, which is double addition of contractual receipt, it may be due to the fact that Assessing Officer may have received information twice from different sources. In fact, the assessees total 6 Sh. Balaji J Bhagnure contractual receipts is only Rs.3

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

ITA 248/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 201(1)

section 201(1) r.w..s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 30.03.2016, 31.03.2016, 30.03.2017 & 14.03.2017 respectively. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical except variance of amount; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake

BANK OF INDIA,SURAT vs. ITO (TDS-1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

ITA 323/SRT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 201(1)

section 201(1) r.w..s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 30.03.2016, 31.03.2016, 30.03.2017 & 14.03.2017 respectively. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical except variance of amount; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

ITA 247/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 201(1)

section 201(1) r.w..s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 30.03.2016, 31.03.2016, 30.03.2017 & 14.03.2017 respectively. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical except variance of amount; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake