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.

9 results for “TDS”+ Section 150(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi466Mumbai405Bangalore365Patna300Chennai183Kolkata102Hyderabad98Karnataka87Ahmedabad77Jaipur75Chandigarh65Cochin59Pune39Raipur35Visakhapatnam29Indore29Nagpur26Lucknow26Dehradun23Guwahati17Rajkot12Surat9Cuttack9Allahabad6Amritsar6Jabalpur3SC2Jodhpur2Ranchi1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)9Addition to Income8Disallowance7Section 143(3)6Section 133(6)5Section 1445Section 254(1)4Section 2(22)(e)4TDS4Section 40

SHRI PRAKASHBHAI HARIBHAI AHIR,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

ITA 497/SRT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Prakashbhai Haribhai Ahir, The Income Tax Officer, 23, Ashish Society, Ward-1(3)(8), Surat. Vs B/H.Navyug College, Rander Road, Surat. Pan: Abfpa 9237 R Appellant Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 23Section 24Section 254(1)

TDS under section 194H of the Act on payment of commission. The income so received by assessee was treated as ‘business income’ instead of ‘income from House Property’. 4. On further perusal of Audit Report and Computation of Income, the AO noted that the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 2.20 Lakhs on Motor Cars, however no Motor Car appeared

3
Section 1473
Deduction2

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

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

ITA 655/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

150/- from two such concerns, namely Euro Diam and Little Diam. The Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice asking the assessee to explain why these purchases should not be treated as bogus. The assessee submitted that the purchases were genuine, supported by purchase bills, ledger entries, bank statements, confirmations and that payments were made through banking channels. However

RAJ KISHORE PRASAD,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.146/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Raj Kishore Prasad, Vs. The Ito, 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Ward-3, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Valsad Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp0535A (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 10(5)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

TDS Valsad on 13th Jan, 2015 treating the assessee in default for non- deduction of tax from the payment made for LTC/LFC on visiting abroad. During the course of penalty proceedings the joint CIT has stated that assessee has failed to furnish any satisfactory reason/explanation for not deducting tax, therefore, he has levied penalty of Rs.1,70,220/- u/s. 271C

JAVAHARLAL S DHARIWAL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 203/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.203/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Javaharlal S Dhariwal Income Tax Officer, 886 Old Gidc, Nr. Bank Of Ward-1(2)(2), Surat-395001 Vs Baroda, Katargam, Surat- 395004 Pan No: Aaypd 4207 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mahul Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 28.04.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat [For Short To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 30.01.2020 For Assessment Year 2013- 14, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1(2)(2), Surat/Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. 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 Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making A Disallowance Of Rs.3,45,378/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. Javaharlal S Dhariwal 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer By Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.2,46,915/- Out Of Total Disallowance Of Rs.4,93,830/- On Account Of Machinery Salary Expenses. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.3,95,466/- Being Interest Expenses Claimed U/S 57 Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 254(1)Section 40Section 57

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making a disallowance of Rs.3,45,378/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. Javaharlal S Dhariwal 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

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

ITA 57/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)

1 or 2 percent of sales made through agent. The assessee not only paid brokerage commission but also sought services to exploit marketing network and expertise of Paras Petrofils Ltd. in the marketing of assessee’s product. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that there was no need for mentioning the name of Paras Petrofils Ltd. on each sale invoices

SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, SURAT

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

ITA 29/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)

1 or 2 percent of sales made through agent. The assessee not only paid brokerage commission but also sought services to exploit marketing network and expertise of Paras Petrofils Ltd. in the marketing of assessee’s product. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that there was no need for mentioning the name of Paras Petrofils Ltd. on each sale invoices

GEETA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT., SURAT

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

ITA 1322/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1322/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Geeta Prints Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 150, Gidc, Pandesara, Vs. Ward -1(1)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat-394 221 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg 88182R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 249Section 250

150, GIDC, Pandesara, Vs. Ward -1(1)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat-394 221 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAACG 88182R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant by Shri Rajesh C. Shah, AR राज" की ओर से /Respondent by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 03/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख

S.R. INFRA CONCEPT PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 673/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 673/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) S. R. Infra Concept Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-4(3), 306, Siddh Chambers, Taratiya, Hanuman Surat. Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. New Designed Ito, Ward-2(1)(2), Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs6992A

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 68

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.16,32,50,000/- on account of share capital and share premium treated alleged unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income

M/S.RADHE SILK MILLS-RF,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD-2(3),, SURAT

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

ITA 638/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.638/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Radhe Silk Mills-Rf, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), V 49, Harikunj Society, Chikuwadi, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Varachha Road,Surat-395006 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfr 4447F (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla– Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145

section 143(3) of the I.T. Act 1961 for the A.Y. 2010-11 are going on in your case. In response to this notice on various date your authorized representative filed submission. After perusal the submissions, notice have been issued to various persons for verification of genuineness of transaction and dispatched through speed post. The postal authority has returned noticed