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.

13 results for “TDS”+ Section 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai749Delhi724Bangalore284Karnataka190Kolkata177Chennai133Ahmedabad118Chandigarh109Jaipur77Pune71Cochin54Indore54Raipur42Dehradun34Hyderabad34Cuttack33Visakhapatnam32Amritsar26Jodhpur16Telangana16Surat13Rajkot11SC9Allahabad8Patna7Guwahati6Jabalpur6Ranchi5Panaji5Agra4Lucknow4Punjab & Haryana3J&K3Kerala3Calcutta2Orissa1Nagpur1Varanasi1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)21Section 19418Section 2(22)(e)17Addition to Income11Section 2019Section 143(3)8Section 407Section 254(1)7TDS7Section 2636Penalty5Deemed Dividend4

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 under section 194-IA of the Act. The assessee further submitted that all the four co-owners filed their

INTERNATIONAL CREATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 194Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

TDS as per provisions of Section 194 of the Act was required to be deducted by the assessee-company, which

RAHUL TEXTILE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., ,SURAT vs. ITO-TDS, WARD-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rahul Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Tds, Ward-2, 4026-27, World Trade Centre, Surat. Udhna Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat – 395002. Pan : Aadcr5890F Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 2(22)(e)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)Section 3

section 194 and therefore, order u/s. 201(1) and interest u/s. 201(1A) are required to be set aside. (3) Without prejudice to the above, the penalty could not have been more than Rs.13.184 as against Rs.2,50,222 worked out by the 2 ITA. 8/SRT/2023/AY.2013-14 Rahul Textile Industries P. Ltd. TDS

SURAT DISTRICT CO.OP.MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 680/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Surat District Co-Op. Dy. Commissioner Of Milk Producer’S Union Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Vs Sumul Dairy Road, Station Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Road, Surat Gate, Surat Pan : Aaaas 3450 M Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 194Section 254(1)Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(e)

section 194-I of the Act. Since no TDS is made by the assessee, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the Assessing

SHILPRAJ DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS- 2,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3160/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3160/Ahd/2014 & 2054/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. 1) The Ito/Tds-2, 12, Suryakiran Apt., Ghod-Dod Surat. Road, Surat – 395007. Jcit/T.D.S. [Pan: Aadcs 3045 H] Range/Surat. अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ashwin Parekh – Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 03.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 & 3, Surat For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. In Ita No.316/Ahd/2014, The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Order Under Section 201(1) R.W.S 201(1A) Passed By Ito- Tds. & In Ita No.2054/Ahd/2016, The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271C Of The Act. As Both The Appeals Are Arising Of The Order Passed By Ito-Tds Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) & Are Inter- Connected With Each Other, Therefore, With The Consent Of The Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito/Tds-2/Srt /

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 2(22)(e)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271C

TDS under section 201(1)/201(1A) and are inter- connected with each other, therefore, with the consent of the Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO/TDS-2/SRT / ITA No’s.3160/AHD/2014 & 2054/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2007-08 parties, both the appeals were heard together and decided by consolidated order. 2. In ITA No.3160/AHD/2014 the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal

SHILPRAJ DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE JCIT, T.D.S. RANGE,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2054/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3160/Ahd/2014 & 2054/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. 1) The Ito/Tds-2, 12, Suryakiran Apt., Ghod-Dod Surat. Road, Surat – 395007. Jcit/T.D.S. [Pan: Aadcs 3045 H] Range/Surat. अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ashwin Parekh – Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 03.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 & 3, Surat For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. In Ita No.316/Ahd/2014, The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Order Under Section 201(1) R.W.S 201(1A) Passed By Ito- Tds. & In Ita No.2054/Ahd/2016, The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271C Of The Act. As Both The Appeals Are Arising Of The Order Passed By Ito-Tds Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) & Are Inter- Connected With Each Other, Therefore, With The Consent Of The Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito/Tds-2/Srt /

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 2(22)(e)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271C

TDS under section 201(1)/201(1A) and are inter- connected with each other, therefore, with the consent of the Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO/TDS-2/SRT / ITA No’s.3160/AHD/2014 & 2054/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2007-08 parties, both the appeals were heard together and decided by consolidated order. 2. In ITA No.3160/AHD/2014 the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal

MANISH UMED DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.245/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Manish Umed Doshi, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), 403, Dalamal House, Jamnalal Bajaj Ahmedabad. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpd3578R

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 23

194-I) was significantly more as compared to income shown in return of income of the assessee. On perusal of Form 26AS, the AO noted that assessee had received rent of Rs.25,92,000/- from ICICI Bank Limited, however the same was not shown in house property income of the assessee. Therefore, vide letter of assessing officer dated 22/12/2019

SURESH RAMANBHAI NAIK L/H OF RAMANBHAI PARBHUBHAI DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Suresh Ramanbhai Naik, I.T.O., L/R Of Ramanbhai Parbhubhai Desai, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. 41, Meghna Raw House, Near Surat. Maharaja Agrasen Bhavan, City Light Road, Surat-395003. Pan No. Akqpd 5495 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271FSection 274

194/- (quantum appeal). 4. The order of learned CIT(A) is not valid, as it is not passed within the time prescribed as per the circular of the CBDT. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. Facts in brief as extracted from the orders of lower authorities are that

LITECON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 220/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.220/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Litecon Industries Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Surat, 1, 123, 1St Floor, Aaykar Block No.255, Navi Pardi, B/H Vs. Kamrej Sugar, Joy N Joy Road, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395002 Kamrej, Surat-394150 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcl 8007 A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 194(7)Section 263Section 40

TDS compliance were supported by receipt issued by CPC. If the same is not apparent technically on screen, it is not fault or lapse on the part of the assessee as these submissions are supported by valid receipts issued by CPC. These receipts must be accepted by the PCIT. 5) The learned PCIT has erred in considering the assessment order

CHIRAGBHAI S. GADHIYA,SURAT vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2)(6),, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 240/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya, I.T.O., 79, Mani Nagar Society, Nana Ward-3(2)(6), Vs. Varachha, Nr. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ajypg 7927 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

TDS form was furnished. On the basis of aforesaid submission, the assessee requested to delete the addition under Section 68 of the Act of Rs. 24,91,375/-. 4. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee held that the assessee claimed that he has received cash from various parties, however, no documentary evidence was furnished before

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 48/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153CSection 158BSection 254(1)

TDS made on such interest and the amount received and repaid during the year. Such details are recorded by ld CITA) at page No. 18 & 19 of his order. The assessee also stated that the assessing officer considered only peak of all transaction and made addition of Rs. 4.15 Crore in AY 2010-11 and Rs. 2.14 Crore

ARJUNSINH HARISINH THAKOR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARDOLI

In the result, grounds No

ITA 245/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 68

TDS of Rs. 1.00 lac on 18/04/2016 which was repaid on 11 Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor Vs ITO 18/04/2016 itself and on remaining entries in this account are about Rs.2,000/- only except one deposit of Rs. 15,000/- on 29/10/2016 and thereafter cash deposit of Rs. 3.00 lacs on three occasions on 10/11/2016, 14/11/2016 and 15/11/2016 and Rs. 5.00 lacs

KISHOR RAMESHBHAI MEHTA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), BHARUCH

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

ITA 60/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.60/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta Vs. Ito, Prop. Of Aditya Infrastructure, Ward - 1(5), 139, Maher Nagar, Opp. Baps Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adepm 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 194ASection 194CSection 2(24)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 68Section 69A

TDS on interest payment to finance company u/s 194A. Expenses disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act,1961. 7. On the facts and in 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 the Assessing Office in making addition of Rs.9