Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

14 results for “TDS”+ Section 197clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi351 Mumbai281 Bangalore261 Chennai115 Karnataka114 Raipur92 Kolkata80 Chandigarh67 Hyderabad59 Jaipur57 Cochin50 Pune44 Ahmedabad34 Ranchi29 Indore22 Visakhapatnam18 Jodhpur17 Guwahati15 Lucknow14 Surat14 Cuttack14 Varanasi8 Allahabad7 Rajkot7 Nagpur6 Telangana4 SC3 Jabalpur3 Patna2 Amritsar1 Agra1

Key Topics

Section 4013 Addition to Income13 Section 201(1)8 TDS8 Section 1446 Bogus Purchases6 Section 132(4)5 Condonation of Delay4 Section 195(6)3 Disallowance

VALSAD DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.OP. BANK LTD.,,VALSAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

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

ITA 1336/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 143Section 197Section 197ASection 40

TDS was required as per section 197 of the Act. Similarly no TDS was made in respect of an amount

BANK OF INDIA,SURAT vs. ITO (TDS-1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

ITA 323/SRT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat

3

21 Nov 2022

AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 201(1)

section 197 for lower deduction or nil deduction is submitted no liability can be fastened on them. The Ld. CIT(A) also in other / 5th category of cases held wherein more than basic exemption limit and the payees have furnished more than one Form 15-G / 15-H and due to some lacunae in software of the assessee-bank

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

ITA 246/SRT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR

section 197 for lower deduction or nil deduction is submitted no liability can be fastened on them. The Ld. CIT(A) also in other / 5th category of cases held wherein more than basic exemption limit and the payees have furnished more than one Form 15-G / 15-H and due to some lacunae in software of the assessee-bank

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

ITA 248/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR

section 197 for lower deduction or nil deduction is submitted no liability can be fastened on them. The Ld. CIT(A) also in other / 5th category of cases held wherein more than basic exemption limit and the payees have furnished more than one Form 15-G / 15-H and due to some lacunae in software of the assessee-bank

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

ITA 247/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR

section 197 for lower deduction or nil deduction is submitted no liability can be fastened on them. The Ld. CIT(A) also in other / 5th category of cases held wherein more than basic exemption limit and the payees have furnished more than one Form 15-G / 15-H and due to some lacunae in software of the assessee-bank

AKSHAR GEMS,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 24/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.24/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Virtual Court Hearing) Akshar Gems, Assistant Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Shreeji Diamond Apartment, Vs. Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Nandu Doshi Ni Wadi, Vastadevdi Road, Aaykar Bhavan Nr.Majura Katargam, Surat – 395004 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarfa3697A Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

Section 195Section 195(6)Section 271Section 274

197; or II. an order from the Assessing Officer under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 195; b) in Part C of Form No.15CA after obtaining a certificate in Form No. 15CB from an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288. (2) The person responsible for paying to a non-resident

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR ROSHAN,,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, VAPI

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3153/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3153/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2007-08 Shri Vijay Kumar Roshan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4-First Floor, Shreeji Ward, Silvasa Apartment Kilavani, Naka Silvasa Pan: Aempr 1339 H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 194CSection 254Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) since the tax audit limit was crossed in the preceding assessment year 2006-07. Hence, the assessee was not aware of TDS compliance. Even if TDS was deducted at 1% which amounts to Rs. 61,030/-, these small sub-contractor have claimed refund of TDS hence, there was no loss of revenue. In support of this

THE ITO, WARD-1,, NA vs. ARIVS.SHRI ANILKUMAR AMRUTLAL CHAHWALA, NAVSARI

In the result, this ground of appeal is rejected

ITA 1003/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2078/Ahd/2010 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1003/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Amrutlal Chahwala, Ward-(1), Navsari. 102, Trimurti Complex, Vijalpore, Navsari. [Pan: Abnpc 6308 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

section 143(3) on 31.12.2008 assessing total income of Rs. 18,25,11,340/-. The assessing officer during the assessment from the trading account of Padmavati Gems noted that the assessee has shown receipt of Rs. 1,78,47,208/- on account of labour job work. The assessee has shown payment of Rs. 1,76,51,180/- as labour charges

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 21/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 22/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 16/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 15/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PAMECHA, AJMER

In the result the ground No

ITA 87/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

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