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.

252 results for “TDS”+ Section 13(8)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,141Mumbai3,993Bangalore2,086Chennai1,386Kolkata989Pune845Ahmedabad772Hyderabad729Indore618Jaipur469Raipur412Chandigarh411Cochin350Karnataka280Nagpur275Surat252Visakhapatnam250Cuttack195Rajkot160Lucknow113Amritsar104Jabalpur95Ranchi87Dehradun74Agra58Patna55Allahabad47Guwahati46Panaji42Jodhpur40Telangana36SC19Kerala13Varanasi12Calcutta9Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan5Uttarakhand3Punjab & Haryana2J&K2Orissa2Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)72Addition to Income70Section 234E69TDS55Section 26349Section 200A41Section 6836Section 254(1)31Disallowance28Section 148

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

8, which is Profit & Loss Account for the assessment year 2008-09 showing total turnover of Rs. 30,84,700. Hence, turnover was less than Ayush M Agarwal v. ITO Wd-1(3)(1)Surat/ITA No.2622/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2009-10 Page 5 of 13 Rs.40 lac hence, TDS was not required to be deducted under section

Showing 1–20 of 252 · Page 1 of 13

...
25
Section 271(1)(c)25
Deduction18

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)

13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala that the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal challenging the validity of order passed by lower authorities, however, in our view the substantial grounds of appeal is whether the lower authorities are justified in charging late fee on late furnishing the statements of TDS of various quarters of different assessment years

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)

13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala that the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal challenging the validity of order passed by lower authorities, however, in our view the substantial grounds of appeal is whether the lower authorities are justified in charging late fee on late furnishing the statements of TDS of various quarters of different assessment years

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)

13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala that the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal challenging the validity of order passed by lower authorities, however, in our view the substantial grounds of appeal is whether the lower authorities are justified in charging late fee on late furnishing the statements of TDS of various quarters of different assessment years

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)

13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala that the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal challenging the validity of order passed by lower authorities, however, in our view the substantial grounds of appeal is whether the lower authorities are justified in charging late fee on late furnishing the statements of TDS of various quarters of different assessment years

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)

13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala that the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal challenging the validity of order passed by lower authorities, however, in our view the substantial grounds of appeal is whether the lower authorities are justified in charging late fee on late furnishing the statements of TDS of various quarters of different assessment years

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-SURAT, SURAT vs. ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

ITA 902/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 194CSection 2(15)Section 250

13(1)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest-free advance of Rs. 9,00,000/- given to the trustee, thereby sustaining the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act to that extent. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal

ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL,SURAT vs. CIT EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

ITA 838/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 194CSection 2(15)Section 250

13(1)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest-free advance of Rs. 9,00,000/- given to the trustee, thereby sustaining the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act to that extent. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal

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 44AD of the IT Act exemption from maintenance of books of accounts have been provided and the presumptive tax at 8% of the gross receipts itself is the basis for determining the taxable income, the assessee was not under obligation to explain individual entry of cash deposits in the bank unless such entries had no nexus with the gross

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)

8 Akshar Infra notice issued before passing such order to assessee and as such the finding of ld CIT(A) is liable to be set aside. 9. On merit, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that all the sellers / co-owners have included the sale consideration in their total income while filing their respective ITR for the relevant assessment

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

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

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)

8 ITA Nos.61-64/SRT/2020 (A.Y15-16) Sh. Ranjitbhai A Patel India [2015] 63 taxmann.com 243/235 Taxman 446 (Raj.), where, in the context of challenge to the vires to the section 234E of the Act, incidentally this issue also came up for consideration. 10. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, we may take a closer look at the statutory provisions applicable. Section

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)

8 ITA Nos.61-64/SRT/2020 (A.Y15-16) Sh. Ranjitbhai A Patel India [2015] 63 taxmann.com 243/235 Taxman 446 (Raj.), where, in the context of challenge to the vires to the section 234E of the Act, incidentally this issue also came up for consideration. 10. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, we may take a closer look at the statutory provisions applicable. Section

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)

8 ITA Nos.61-64/SRT/2020 (A.Y15-16) Sh. Ranjitbhai A Patel India [2015] 63 taxmann.com 243/235 Taxman 446 (Raj.), where, in the context of challenge to the vires to the section 234E of the Act, incidentally this issue also came up for consideration. 10. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, we may take a closer look at the statutory provisions applicable. Section

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)

8 ITA Nos.61-64/SRT/2020 (A.Y15-16) Sh. Ranjitbhai A Patel India [2015] 63 taxmann.com 243/235 Taxman 446 (Raj.), where, in the context of challenge to the vires to the section 234E of the Act, incidentally this issue also came up for consideration. 10. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, we may take a closer look at the statutory provisions applicable. Section

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 263 of the Act and referred to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts in the cases of Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Pavilee Projects Pvt. Ltd., 149 taxman.com 115 (SC), CIT vs. Nagesh Neatwears Pvt. Ltd., 345 ITR 135 (Delhi), ITO vs. D. G. Housing Projcts Ltd., (ITA No.179/2011

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

8. confirming the addition of Rs.63,01,864/- under the head labour charges under section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act,1961 without appreciating the facts of the case properly. Ground No. 4 states that Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in 9. confirming the addition of Rs.42,09,214/- under the head carriage inward expenses

STATE BANK OF INDIA,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 38/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.37 & 38/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtualcourt Hearing) State Bank Of India Income Tax Officer (Tds-3) Room No.607, Aaykar Regional Business Office-V, Navsari- Vs. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Tapi, 1St Floor, Shourya Apartment, 395001 Opp. Lunsikul Ground, Navsari- 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacs 8577 K (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Divyang J. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sita Ram Meena,– Sr-DR
Section 201Section 5

TDS with respect to LTC/ LFC amount paid to its employees by the State Bank of India) in favour of assessee. 11.On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of assessing officer. 12.We note that issue under consideration is no longer res integra. The Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the assessee

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