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.

69 results for “TDS”+ Section 250(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,473Delhi821Bangalore550Kolkata452Chennai330Pune322Ahmedabad287Raipur277Patna194Hyderabad189Jaipur175Cochin157Chandigarh136Nagpur110Amritsar93Indore86Karnataka85Rajkot76Lucknow75Surat69Visakhapatnam60Guwahati46Panaji41Cuttack40Jodhpur37Ranchi31Jabalpur24Dehradun22Agra20Allahabad14Varanasi6SC3Telangana3Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 25049TDS43Addition to Income41Section 143(3)36Deduction31Disallowance24Section 4021Section 200A(1)16Section 201(1)16Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs. VALENCIA CORPORATION, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 257/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) A.C.I.T. M/S Valencia Corporation, Central Circle-4, S. No. 400, T.P. No. 29 (Vesu-Rundh Vs. Surat. Magdalla), F.P. No. 45/2, Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat) Pan : Aakfv 2329 K Appellant Respondednt C.O. No. 17/Srt/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 257/Srt/2022)(Ay: 2016-17) M/S Valencia Corporation, A.C.I.T. S. No. 400, T.P. No. 29 (Vesu- Central Circle-4, Vs. Rundh Magdalla), F.P. No. 45/2, Surat. Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat) Pan : Aakfv 2329 K Appellant/Objector Respondednt

Section 250(4)Section 250(5)Section 254(1)Section 41Section 41(1)

section 250(5). 4. In addition and alternative to cross objection No. 1, 2, & 3, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts that entire amount of Rs. 2,56,70,912/- pertains to works contractor(i.e. Konark Infratech) and TDS

Showing 1–20 of 69 · Page 1 of 4

14
Section 254(1)11
Section 14710

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)

section 201(1)/201(1A) on 28.07.2021 and also held liable to pay interest from the date on which Tax at Sources (TDS) was liable to be deducted. The Assessing Officer worked out @ 1% on total sale consideration at 4 Akshar Infra Rs.1,47,000/- and also calculated interest from 13.05.2015 to till July, 2021 i.e., for seventy-five months

VALSAD DISTRICT CO.OP .BANK LTD.,,SURAT vs. DY.CIT,VALSAD CIRCLE,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for this assessment year

ITA 842/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37Section 37(1)

250 and Rs. 4, 02,909 is added to total income and credit of TDS deducted thereon allowed against payment of taxes. However, the AO viewed that the assessee has excluded exact amount of TDS deducted by the Banks. Therefore, it is established that the bank was aware of the said TDS, otherwise, it would not have been able

VALSAD DISTRICT CO.OP .BANK LTD.,,SURAT vs. DY.CIT,VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for this assessment year

ITA 826/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37Section 37(1)

250 and Rs. 4, 02,909 is added to total income and credit of TDS deducted thereon allowed against payment of taxes. However, the AO viewed that the assessee has excluded exact amount of TDS deducted by the Banks. Therefore, it is established that the bank was aware of the said TDS, otherwise, it would not have been able

VALSAD DISTRICT CO.OP .BANK LTD.,,SURAT vs. DY.CIT,VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for this assessment year

ITA 827/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37Section 37(1)

250 and Rs. 4, 02,909 is added to total income and credit of TDS deducted thereon allowed against payment of taxes. However, the AO viewed that the assessee has excluded exact amount of TDS deducted by the Banks. Therefore, it is established that the bank was aware of the said TDS, otherwise, it would not have been able

THE UDHNA CITIZEN CO OPP. BANK LIMITED ,NOW MERGE WITH KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.OP. BANK LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. I.T.O TDS -2 , SURAT

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

ITA 512/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Ms Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

section 201(1) r.w.s 201(1A) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the TDS AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The assessee

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 655/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad with regards to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on addition made of 5% of total purchase value to the tune of Rs. 43,83,431/- from

ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL,SURAT vs. CIT EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

ITA 838/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 194CSection 2(15)Section 250

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for Assessment Year 2018–19. Since both appeals arise out of the same order, they are heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order. ITO Vs. Abhyuththan Gram Vikaas Mandal Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-SURAT, SURAT vs. ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

ITA 902/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 194CSection 2(15)Section 250

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for Assessment Year 2018–19. Since both appeals arise out of the same order, they are heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order. ITO Vs. Abhyuththan Gram Vikaas Mandal Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. JASHMIN KANTILAL PATEL, VAPI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 125/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.125/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Jashmin Kantilal Patel, Vapi Circle, Plot No.320/9, 40 Shed Area, Gidc, Vapi Vapi – 396191. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agcp0492M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 09/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 143(1)

section 143(1) of the Act, to the tune of Rs.2,13,98,205/- (The said income / addition of Rs.2,13,98,205/- relates to total TDS of Rs.1,60,305/-). 5. On appeal by assessee, the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition observing as follows: “Facts of the case and appellant's submission were perused. Taxability of income comes

M/S SEVEN EAGLE PRODUCTION,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT

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

ITA 24/SRT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Seven Eagle Production, The Assistant 5/6, Paras Shopping Centre, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Near.Gajera Circle, Katargam, Tax, Circle-3(2), Surat. Email:Srshethtax@Gmail.Com Surat – 395004. Pan: Abffs 0860 C Applicant Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 40

1) and supplying reasons recorded, proceeded for re- assessment. During the assessment the assessee was asked to submits the details of tax deducted at sources on the payments of various expenses of Rs. 4.37 Crore, as mentioned in para 6.1 of the assessment order. The assessee filed its reply as recorded in para 6.2 of the assessment order

ESSAR STEEL LOGESTICS LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(1))1), SURAT

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

ITA 695/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.695/Srt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Essar Steel Logistics Limited, Vs Dy.Commissioner Of 27 Km Hazira, Surat Road, . Income Tax, [Circle- Hazira, Surat. 1(1)(1)], Surat. [Pan: Aadce 3876 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Bhanwala – Ca राज"कीओर से /Revenue By Ms. Usha Shrote – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.03.2021 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 25.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat, Hereinafter Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)” Dated 27.08.2018 For The A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law On The Subject, Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.12,45,026/- U/S. 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Employees Pf Contribution. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.86,75,510/- On Account Of Undisclosed Receipt In Case Of Short Claim Of Tds Of Rs.1,73,511/-.

Section 36(1)(va)

TDS. The Ld. DR further submits that the issue raised in the Ground No.1 is covered against the assessee by the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the decision of CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) it has been referred and relied by the AO. On the basis of aforesaid submissions the learned DR for the revenue supported

SHRI GIRISHBHAI R PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, SURAT, SURAT

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

ITA 758/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Girishbhai R Patel, The Income Tax Officer, A-93, Pl-A, Pranek Garden, International Taxation, Vs. Panchasheel Encl. Anavil Business Centre, Dahanukarwadi Off. M.G. Road, Adajan, Surat. Mumbai Pan : Axnpp 4064 B Applicant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

TDS amounting to Rs.41,121/- from total tax demand. 6) It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is non-resident Indian. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147. The case was reopened

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

M/S R. K. SHAH PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 533/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S R.K. Shah Project Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1St Floor, Aditya Complex, 2(1)(1), Vs Near Kapadia Health Club, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Bhatar Road, Surat-395007. Gate, Surat. Pan : Aabcr 8584 Q Applicant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in passing ex-party order without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income

M/S.ACE RESORTS & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(1)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 119/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S. Ace Resorts & Infrastructure The Income Tax Officer, Pvt Ltd., Ward-1(1) (1), Surat. Vs F-22/23, Jolly Arcade, Ghod Dod Road, Surat – 395001. Pan : Aafca 5790 H Applicant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 40

1 Disallowance of Rent Expenses u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Rs.2,20,500/- I.T.Act. 2 Disallowance of supervision charges u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Rs.13,21,719/- I.T.Act. 3 Addition on account of prior period items Rs.1,42,878/- 4 Addition on account of labour contractor and supervision Rs.21,98,350/- charges 5 Disallowance on account of interest

VINAYLAL SHANKARLAL PRAJAPATI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 287/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vinaylal Shankarlal Prajapati, I.T.O., Block No. 26, Plot No. 1, Shyam Raw Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. House, Godadara Road, Parvat Gam, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Abcpp 1291 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 40

1. The ld. Faceless CIT(A) has erred and was not justified on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition ex parte despite the assessee requesting for adjournment on the date of hearing. 2. Prayer 2.1 The ld. Faceless CIT(A) may be kindly directed to hear the appeal and decide accordingly. 2.2 Personal hearing

HASUMATIBEN JAGDISHBHAI PATEL, ,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 322/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.322/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hasumatiben Jagdishbhai Principal Commissioner Of Patel Income-Tax, Valsad, 301, Vs 80 Shree Ram Estate, Opp. 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Pandesara Petrol Pump Office, Palak Arcade, Shanti Bhedwad, Surat-394220 Nagar, Tithal Road, Pan : Aaopp 1698 K Valsad-396001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

TDS or that such issues were not verified. The Ld. PCIT gave his observation / findings without giving any opportunity of such additional issue. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that without giving any opportunity on the issue which was not subject-matter of show cause, the order passed by Ld.PCIT under section 263 to that extent is absolutely illegal

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

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 14.05.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeal, Addl/JCIT(A)-4 Kolkata [in short, the ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s 201(1) r.w.s

RAHUL COAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,SURAT vs. ITO TDS-2, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1220/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1220/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Rahul Coal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Addl. Cit (Tds), 429-432 Golden Point, Ring Road, Surat, Nr. Bsnl Office, Surat-395 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcr1044D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

Section 133ASection 201(1)Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 271C(1)(a)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 15.10.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. which in turn arises out of the penalty order passed by Addl. CIT(TDS), Surat u/s 271CA the Act, dated 25.02.2022. 2. Grounds