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.

102 results for “TDS”+ Section 148clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,020Delhi905Bangalore338Hyderabad333Chennai321Kolkata252Ahmedabad247Jaipur175Pune172Chandigarh155Cochin135Karnataka127Surat102Indore96Visakhapatnam71Raipur65Rajkot54Lucknow46Nagpur37Cuttack35Guwahati26Amritsar25Patna25Agra16Jabalpur10Jodhpur9Ranchi8Allahabad8Panaji6Varanasi6Dehradun5SC4Telangana2Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 14893Addition to Income61Section 10(37)60Section 143(3)48Section 14748Section 254(1)36Disallowance35Section 14432TDS29Exemption

SHIVA INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY GUJARAT PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, SURAT

In the result, ITA No.2527/Ahd/2017 is allowed, and ITA

ITA 2528/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nirmal Somani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smitha V. Nair, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 40

148 or to disclose all material facts fully and truly necessary for its assessment. A perusal of the reasons extracted (supra), it nowhere reveals that the AO has pointed out any fact which was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly. The facts recorded by him with regard non-payment of employees’ contribution towards ESIC and PF are taken

Showing 1–20 of 102 · Page 1 of 6

27
Section 6823
Section 26321

SHIVA INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY GUJARAT PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, ITA No.2527/Ahd/2017 is allowed, and ITA

ITA 2527/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nirmal Somani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smitha V. Nair, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 40

148 or to disclose all material facts fully and truly necessary for its assessment. A perusal of the reasons extracted (supra), it nowhere reveals that the AO has pointed out any fact which was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly. The facts recorded by him with regard non-payment of employees’ contribution towards ESIC and PF are taken

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) under section 194C of the Act. As no return of income was filed in response of notice under section 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

TDS under section 194C on labour expenses of Rs.4,90,232 on which the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source @1%. Therefore, said amount is liable to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, hence, income liable to be taxed is escaped assessment. This reason is erroneous as the assessee being an individual

RIZWANAHMED MOHMED USMAIN SHAIKH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis dismissed

ITA 46/SRT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Rizwanahmed Mohmed Usmain The Ito, Shaikh Ward-1(2)(6), Vs Hasina, Manjil, Harinagar-1, Surat. Udhna, Surat. Pan: Adaps 5725 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 201Section 40

148 was issued on 2nd march, 2015 which is beyond the time limit prescribed in view of proviso to section 147, as all the material facts was disclosed during the original assessment u/s 143(3) made on 26.12.2011. The fact of non-deduction of TDS

SHRI JAYESH KANTILAL MODI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 357/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 40A

148, thus the return is to be treated as nonest as per provisions of Section 124(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) after referring various case laws, held that the provisions of Section 147 of the Act required that the Assessing officer should have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has ITA 357 & 356/SRT/2017

SHRI JAYESH KANTILAL MODI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 356/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 40A

148, thus the return is to be treated as nonest as per provisions of Section 124(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) after referring various case laws, held that the provisions of Section 147 of the Act required that the Assessing officer should have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has ITA 357 & 356/SRT/2017

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

ITA 467/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income on 31/5/2017. The reasons of reopening were provided to the assessee vide letter dated 09/06/2017. The Assessing officer made reopening on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.), Surat regarding cheque discounting business wherein investigation was conducted in case of Shri Maheshbhai Tulshibhai Patel and Shri Ramesh

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

ITA 465/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income on 31/5/2017. The reasons of reopening were provided to the assessee vide letter dated 09/06/2017. The Assessing officer made reopening on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.), Surat regarding cheque discounting business wherein investigation was conducted in case of Shri Maheshbhai Tulshibhai Patel and Shri Ramesh

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

ITA 466/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income on 31/5/2017. The reasons of reopening were provided to the assessee vide letter dated 09/06/2017. The Assessing officer made reopening on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.), Surat regarding cheque discounting business wherein investigation was conducted in case of Shri Maheshbhai Tulshibhai Patel and Shri Ramesh

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

ITA 468/SRT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income on 31/5/2017. The reasons of reopening were provided to the assessee vide letter dated 09/06/2017. The Assessing officer made reopening on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.), Surat regarding cheque discounting business wherein investigation was conducted in case of Shri Maheshbhai Tulshibhai Patel and Shri Ramesh

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

M/S SEVEN EAGLE PRODUCTION,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT

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

ITA 24/SRT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Seven Eagle Production, The Assistant 5/6, Paras Shopping Centre, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Near.Gajera Circle, Katargam, Tax, Circle-3(2), Surat. Email:Srshethtax@Gmail.Com Surat – 395004. Pan: Abffs 0860 C Applicant Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 40

148, the assessee filed its reply on 28.10.2016 stating therein that the return filed originally on 29.09.2010 be treated return in response to the said notice. The assessing officer after serving statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) and supplying reasons recorded, proceeded for re- assessment. During the assessment the assessee was asked to submits the details

ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT vs. VIMALCHAND MANIKCHAND JAIN, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

ITA 118/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

section 148 with reasons of reopening, (14) Objection against reopening dated 22.11.2018, (15) Reply to show cause notice dated 13.12,2018, (16) Copy of statement dated 05.12.2013 recorded by search team, and letter dated 01.04.2014 written by Rajinder Jain and Surrender jain admitting them as entry provider, (17) Reply before CIT(A) and the decision in case of Anshuman Ramdayalji

ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT vs. VIMALCHAND MANIKCHAND JAIN, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

ITA 117/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

section 148 with reasons of reopening, (14) Objection against reopening dated 22.11.2018, (15) Reply to show cause notice dated 13.12,2018, (16) Copy of statement dated 05.12.2013 recorded by search team, and letter dated 01.04.2014 written by Rajinder Jain and Surrender jain admitting them as entry provider, (17) Reply before CIT(A) and the decision in case of Anshuman Ramdayalji

ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT vs. VIMALCHAND MANIKCHAND JAIN, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

ITA 119/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

section 148 with reasons of reopening, (14) Objection against reopening dated 22.11.2018, (15) Reply to show cause notice dated 13.12,2018, (16) Copy of statement dated 05.12.2013 recorded by search team, and letter dated 01.04.2014 written by Rajinder Jain and Surrender jain admitting them as entry provider, (17) Reply before CIT(A) and the decision in case of Anshuman Ramdayalji

HASMUKHBHAI RAVJIBHAI CHAUDHARI,MANDVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, BARDOLI

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 325/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.325/Srt/2022 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hasmukhbhai Ravjibhai Income Tax Officer, Chaudhari, Choramba, At Ward-2, Bardoli-394601 Vs Post Choramba Taluka Mandvi, Surat-394440 Pan No: Amipc 8927 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

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

TDS) under section 194C was deducted. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer was having belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment to the extent of Rs.14,27,800/-. The Assessing Officer after recording the reasons of re-opening issued notice under section 148

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)

148 of the Act. The reasons of reopening was asked by the assessee. The assessee filed his objections against the reopening. The objection of the assessee was rejected in detailed and speaking order by the assessing officer. 7. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has shown purchase from the entities managed by Bhanwarlal

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)

148 of the Act. The reasons of reopening was asked by the assessee. The assessee filed his objections against the reopening. The objection of the assessee was rejected in detailed and speaking order by the assessing officer. 7. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has shown purchase from the entities managed by Bhanwarlal

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)

148 of the Act. The reasons of reopening was asked by the assessee. The assessee filed his objections against the reopening. The objection of the assessee was rejected in detailed and speaking order by the assessing officer. 7. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has shown purchase from the entities managed by Bhanwarlal