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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Section 155clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai390Delhi349Bangalore123Chennai121Karnataka106Chandigarh99Ahmedabad96Cochin76Kolkata63Jaipur45Raipur44Pune32Hyderabad30Cuttack28Rajkot27Indore26Dehradun22Visakhapatnam17Lucknow11Jabalpur6Nagpur6Surat5Allahabad4SC4Jodhpur3Amritsar3Telangana2Varanasi2Guwahati1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)6Disallowance5Section 2(22)(e)4Section 254(1)3Section 10(5)3TDS3Addition to Income3Section 133(6)2Section 36(1)(va)2Section 2(24)(x)

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

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

2
Deemed Dividend2

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)

Section 133(6) of the Act. The Assessing Officer alleged that Sonic Biochem Extractions Ltd. was in the business of pharmaceuticals ingredients. However, he failed to appreciate that it was not the real criteria to judge and determine the exact business of the company from broad projection displayed on any website. The website itself suggesting large area of business operations

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)

Section 133(6) of the Act. The Assessing Officer alleged that Sonic Biochem Extractions Ltd. was in the business of pharmaceuticals ingredients. However, he failed to appreciate that it was not the real criteria to judge and determine the exact business of the company from broad projection displayed on any website. The website itself suggesting large area of business operations

SHREEJI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

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

ITA 1729/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1729/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Shreeji Chemical Industries, V. Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Ketan H Shah, Advocate Income Tax 903, Sapphire Complex Circle-2, Bharuch-394116. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009. [Pan: Aajfs 6791 D] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)

section 133(6) of the Act and clearly stated that they have made purchases from the assessee directly and there was no commission agents involved. We find that the assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidence regarding service rendered by each commission party, correspondence by the commission agents with the assessee prior to sales and post sales. Therefore, mere

ANJANI INFRA,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 478/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Anjani Infra Dy. Commissioner Of Block No. 142, Fp No.47, T.P. Income Tax, Vs Scheme No. 27, Shangrila Central Circle-2, Heights, Moje Villge, Kosad, Surat-395001 Pan : Aawfa 0376 M Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 68

section 68 and disallowed the professional fees. On further appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] the action of Assessing Officer was upheld. Thus, further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before us. 3. We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) represent assessee and Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the 2 Anjar