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.

262 results for “TDS”+ Section 12clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,453Delhi4,412Bangalore2,278Chennai1,560Kolkata1,145Pune930Ahmedabad832Hyderabad785Indore678Jaipur540Chandigarh446Raipur421Cochin397Karnataka302Nagpur279Visakhapatnam277Surat262Cuttack211Rajkot190Lucknow138Amritsar119Jabalpur107Jodhpur89Dehradun69Agra65Ranchi61Patna59Allahabad58Panaji54Guwahati47Telangana38SC23Calcutta15Varanasi14Kerala13Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Punjab & Haryana5Uttarakhand3J&K2Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income77Section 143(3)74TDS53Section 26349Section 6840Disallowance30Section 14829Section 254(1)28Section 200A23Section 234E

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 262 · Page 1 of 14

...
21
Section 14721
Deduction16
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 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 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

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 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 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

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 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 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

SHRI AYUSH MURALILAL AGARWAL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2622/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2622/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Ayush Murarilal Agarwal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Brijvilla Bunglow, Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(3)(1) Surat B/H Gokul Row House, Parley Point Surat 395 007 [Pan: Acypa 9649 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala - Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri B. P. K. Panda, Sr. D.R.

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 194CSection 40Section 44A

TDS in case of individual /HUF, under section 194C (2) arises only if in financial year immediately preceding financial year in which payment is made, total sales, gross receipts or turnover exceeded limits provided in section 44AB. However, the AO during assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has shown turnover of Rs. 55,97,205 from his construction activities which

VALSAD DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.OP. BANK LTD.,,VALSAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1336/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 143Section 197Section 197ASection 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. Succinctly, facts as culled out from the orders of lower authorities are that the assessee bank has not deducted TDS on interest paid/credited amounting to Rs. 3,12

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

VIKRAM HARSHADBHAI MODI,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(5), SURAT

In the result, Ground No.2 and 3 of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 196/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Vikram Harshadbhai The Income Tax Officer Modi, Ward-3(1)(5), Aaykar Vs 7/2737, Chandulal Sheth Ni Bhavan, Majura Gate, Sheri, Saiyedpura, Surat-395001 Surat-395003 Pan : Alhpm 2036 Q Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 254(1)Section 44A

TDS was made under section 194C of the Act. The assessee is covered by the provision of section 44AD of the Act and the income earned by the assessee was less than the minimum income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.1,60,428/- and the assessee was not required to file return of income. Even in response to notice under

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

SHRI MAHENDRA S. GAJJAR,NARMADA vs. DCIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1714/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 133Section 143Section 194CSection 200Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the assessee has failed to deduct TDS thereon. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). 12

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