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.

110 results for “TDS”+ Section 2(37)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,343Mumbai2,323Bangalore1,107Chennai826Kolkata530Ahmedabad480Hyderabad447Pune299Jaipur274Chandigarh273Indore255Cochin225Karnataka192Raipur174Visakhapatnam132Surat110Cuttack90Rajkot82Lucknow70Jabalpur56Ranchi43Guwahati41Amritsar36Nagpur36Agra33Patna30Jodhpur29Allahabad21Dehradun18Telangana17Panaji11Calcutta10SC10Varanasi7Kerala6Uttarakhand3J&K2Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)62Addition to Income62Section 10(37)58Section 26339Disallowance39Section 254(1)28Exemption25TDS23Section 6817Deduction

SHRI DINESHBHAI VITTALBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 970/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.970/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dineshbhai Vittalbhai Income Tax Officer, Patel, Ward- 2(3)(7), Surat 6/1261, Bhut Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat Pan: Aatwpp 3597J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(37)Section 143Section 148Section 77

37) of the Act. 6. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the agricultural land was compulsory acquired by the SMC under section 77 of BPMC Act and who had full power and authority given by the Central Government for acquisition of immovable property and was declared trustee & custodian

DHANSUKHBHAI PARAGJIBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

Showing 1–20 of 110 · Page 1 of 6

17
Section 14816
Section 14415

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 1021/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1021/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dhansukhbhai Deputy Commissioner Of Paragjibhai Patel, Income-Tax, 143, Brahaman Faliya, Circle - 2(3) Surat Dindoli Udhna 394210 Pan: Avdpp7007 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(37)Section 143Section 148Section 77

2(3) Surat, in which consolidated order has been passed in I.T.A.No. 1566/Ahd/2016 dated 13.12.2019 for A.Y. 2009-10 as lead case (copy of order filed and placed on record) by which exemption under section 10(37) was allowed in favour of the assessee. 5. Per contra, the ld. Sr. D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities. However

SMT. CHANCHALBEN MOHANBHAI BHANDAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 476/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

SHRI AMRATLAL MAGANLAL DESAI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 448/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

SHRI GAMANBHAI K. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 625/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

SHRI HASMUKHBHAI K. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 623/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

SHRI JAYANTIBHAI AMBARAM PATEL (HUF),,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 518/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

SHRI MOHANBHAI M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1571/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

SHRI ISHWARBHAI M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1562/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

SHRI DINESHCHANDRA C. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1563/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

SHRI SATISHBHAI M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1566/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

SHRI AMBUBHAI C. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1567/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

SHRI BABUBHAI J. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1569/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

SHRI PRADIPKUMAR A. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1572/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

SHRI ISHWARBHAI ZINABHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1445/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

SHRI PRAVINKUMAR M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1565/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

NARESH M. BHANDARI,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1692/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

SHRI SAMEERKUMAR J. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1568/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

SHRI NAVNITBHAI M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1570/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken

VASANTBHAI MOHANBHAI BHANDHARI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1690/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

Section 10(37)

2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year 2009-10 as lead case whose finding would mutatis mutandis apply to other cases listed above. 3. The assessee has taken