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.

6 results for “TDS”+ Section 226(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi350Mumbai294Chennai188Karnataka168Bangalore132Kolkata94Raipur88Ahmedabad60Jaipur59Pune56Hyderabad52Dehradun31Indore30Chandigarh28Jodhpur23Cuttack16Cochin14Rajkot14Lucknow13Visakhapatnam10Amritsar9Nagpur8Surat6Jabalpur6Guwahati6Panaji5Patna4Kerala3SC3Agra2Telangana2Allahabad2Ranchi1Orissa1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 1447Section 2016TDS5Section 2634Section 143(3)4Section 36(1)(va)4Addition to Income4Section 403Section 194I3Disallowance

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)

3 M.A.Vaghasia AAQPV9317F 20th Sep. 2016 4 R.C.Padshala ABUPP0575E 10th Oct. 2016 5 Akshar Infra 5. The Assessing Officer treated the assessee as assessee in default. The Assessing Officer failed to take into account the operation of first proviso to Section 201(1) and proviso to Section 201(1A). The assessee submitted that proviso to Section 201(1A) is applicable

SACH ELECTRO MECH PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

3
Section 1472

In the result ground No. 4 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 262/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court - Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.262/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sach Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd., V The Income Tax Officer, C/2, Maheshwari Apartment, S Ward-2(1)(2), Surat. Timaliyawad, Nanpura, . Surat – 395 001. [Pan: Aaics 8963 M] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Manish J.Shah – Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40Section 43B

TDS. In the result, the ground No. 3 is allowed. 14. Ground No.4 relates to disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that during the financial year relevant to the assessment period under consideration, the assessee has not shown any exempt income, therefore there should not be any disallowance under section

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. M/S. D P VEKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,

ITA 172/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 172/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Physical Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-3(3), Vs. M/S. D. P. Vekariya, Surat Skylark Shopping, B/H Kapodara Police Station, Varachha Road, Surat, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfd 8442 Q (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr 02/06/2022 Date Of Hearing 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

3) of the Act on 07.12.2011, determining total income at Rs.6,25,26,650/-. The assessee is a government contractor and does work for Government and Semi Government on contract basis. On verification of the case records, it was observed by assessing officer that assessee has declared undisclosed income of Rs.1,05,00,000/- during survey proceedings. It was observed

LILADEVI DOKANIA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.1(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/SRT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.126/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Liladevi Dokania Income Tax Officer Ward- 1(2)(3), Aayakar Bhawan, Plot No.1/2,Mayur House, Beside Vs. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Milleniumm Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abipd 2171 Q (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K Kabra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Deependra Kumar, SR-DR
Section 205

3. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee before us is an individual and during the assessment year he earned income from “house Property”. The Tenant, while paying the rent to assessee had deducted TDS from the payment, but did not deposit in the Government account. The assessee had claimed the whole of the amount of TDS as credited

ITO, WARD-3(3)(4), SURAT vs. M/S. SATYAM ENTERPRISE, SURAT

In the result, this part of issue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 169/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., M/S Satyam Enterprise, Ward- 3(3)(4), 182-Thakordwar Society, Nr. Vs. Surat. Spinning Mill, Varachha Road, Surat. Pan No. Abvfs 5076 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 201Section 254(1)Section 40

TDS on labour contract expenses. Thus, the Assessing Officer on the basis of report of auditor and in absence of complete details of contract payments, made disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) of Rs. 3,28,67,900/- while passing the assessment order on 28/03/2016. 4. Aggrieved by the additions

SWASTIK CORPORATION,VAPI vs. PR. CIT 3, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.21/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Swastik Corporation The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Palak A-305, Surya Co-Operative Vs. Housing Society Ltd., Plot Arcade, Pali Hill Shanti Nagar, Tithal No.61, Vapi-396195 Road,Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abtfs 1028 G अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 184(5)Section 234A(1)Section 263Section 40

226/- only instead of Rs.1,09,317/-. There was no response to the show-cause notices issued by the assessing officer and therefore, the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. As there was a short deduction of tax at source by Rs.11,950/- the proportionate interest payment of Rs.1,19,500/- was disallowed under section