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.

46 results for “TDS”+ Section 36(1)(iv)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,279Mumbai1,121Bangalore708Chennai397Ahmedabad263Kolkata259Hyderabad210Cochin196Chandigarh181Jaipur159Karnataka151Indore112Pune108Raipur90Visakhapatnam70Cuttack61Surat46Lucknow40Rajkot39Nagpur29Jabalpur26Guwahati24Agra21Jodhpur19Dehradun15Amritsar12Telangana12Varanasi11Allahabad10SC9Patna7Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan5Panaji5Kerala5Ranchi4Uttarakhand2J&K1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)42Addition to Income32Section 6825Disallowance21Deduction16Section 26315TDS15Section 25011Section 379Section 36(1)(v)

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

36(1) (viia) was restore to the file of assessing officer for recomputation of claim of deduction to the extent of amount written back in the books of account. Thus, the facts of that case are in variance. 26. In the result, ground No.1& 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 5.Considering the decision of Tribunal in assessee

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3

9
Section 1448
Section 80P(2)(a)8

THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 590/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

36(1) (viia) was restore to the file of assessing officer for recomputation of claim of deduction to the extent of amount written back in the books of account. Thus, the facts of that case are in variance. 26. In the result, ground No.1& 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 5.Considering the decision of Tribunal in assessee

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)

IV schedule of the Act (PB-37-38). The learned counsel for the assessee contended that this issue is squarely covered by the order dated 05.02.2018 of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in appellant`s own case for the assessment year 2010-11 in SCA NO. 20801 of 2017 whereby the notice issued u/s.147

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)

IV schedule of the Act (PB-37-38). The learned counsel for the assessee contended that this issue is squarely covered by the order dated 05.02.2018 of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in appellant`s own case for the assessment year 2010-11 in SCA NO. 20801 of 2017 whereby the notice issued u/s.147

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)

IV schedule of the Act (PB-37-38). The learned counsel for the assessee contended that this issue is squarely covered by the order dated 05.02.2018 of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in appellant`s own case for the assessment year 2010-11 in SCA NO. 20801 of 2017 whereby the notice issued u/s.147

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

ITA 176/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: “1. On the facts and circumstances o
Section 254(1)Section 68

iv) One Director, Smt.Ragini J Kothari is holding 2.75% shares, but no commission has been paid to her, perhaps due to the reason there was no additional service rendered by her. v) Other five Directors viz., Shri Jayneesh Kothari, Shri Ketan R Shah, Shri Rameshchandra C Kothari, Smt.Sangita K Shah and Shri Shashwat J Kothari are holding shares

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

ITA 175/SRT/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: “1. On the facts and circumstances o
Section 254(1)Section 68

iv) One Director, Smt.Ragini J Kothari is holding 2.75% shares, but no commission has been paid to her, perhaps due to the reason there was no additional service rendered by her. v) Other five Directors viz., Shri Jayneesh Kothari, Shri Ketan R Shah, Shri Rameshchandra C Kothari, Smt.Sangita K Shah and Shri Shashwat J Kothari are holding shares

HARMONY YARNS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 348/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Harmony Yarns Private Vs. The Pcit-1, Limited, Surat Plot-65, 1St Floor Subhash Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Nr. Ram Chowk, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach5895F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Airiju Jaikaran, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 23/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

36(1)(va) the contribution paid after the due date is not eligible for deduction. 3. In regards to the above it is submitted that the first matter related to Unsecured Loan was already examined by the Ld Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. From the screenshot of scrutiny assessment order u/s 143(3) depicted in Point

SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, SURAT

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

ITA 29/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)

36(1)(va) if paid by the due date prescribed under those Acts, accordingly disallowed Rs. 1,48,464/-. 9. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. The submission on all three additions is recorded in para

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

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

ITA 57/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)

36(1)(va) if paid by the due date prescribed under those Acts, accordingly disallowed Rs. 1,48,464/-. 9. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. The submission on all three additions is recorded in para

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1509/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 131Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 68

TDS, Circle- Ranchi under section 131 (1)(d) of the Act to conduct enquiries in case of the lenders based at Ranchi. The said officers have sent the enquiry reports, which are framing part of assessment order. The findings of the AO as per chart is as under: S. Name of the Alleged Findings of enquiry N. Lenders Loan(includi

SHREE MAHUVA PRADESH SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,,MAHUVA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER.TDS-4,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 117/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 117/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2008-09 M/S. Shree Mahuva Pradesh Vs. Income-Tax Officer Tds-4 Sahkari Khand Udyog Mandali Surat Ltd. At & Po Sugar Factory Bamania 305202 Pan: Aaaas 4731M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206C

IV, Surat [in short “the CIT(A)”] dated 15.10.2014 pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09, which in turn has arisen from the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the Income-tax Officer TDS-4, Surat (in short “the AO”) under section 201(1) & 201(1A) of Income Tax Act,1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). Shree Mahuva Pradesh Sahkari Khand Udyog Mandli

SACH ELECTRO MECH PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

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

ITA 392/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 145ASection 14ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 40A

36,556 Total 1,75,79,736 3. Thus, the assessee has not reported the receipt received from above five entities. 4. On further scrutiny of balance-sheet, profit and loss account, computation of income and tax audit report, the ld. PR.CIT find that auditor in from 3CD (item 21(ii) in respect of sales tax, custom duties excise duties

D V PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 121/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) D. V. Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit - 1, 748-749, Golden Plaza Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms Chaitali Shah, Ca Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43B

36(1)(va) of the Act, the contribution paid after the due date is not eligible for deduction. The same is to be disallowed. But as per the computation of income available in ITBA portal, for A.Y. 2018-19, it was noticed by ld PCIT that the assessee has not disallowed the same. ITA No.121/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 D. V. Properties

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NA vs. ARIVS.GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 129/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 251(1)(a)Section 80P(2)(A)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

iv). 21. The following chart is submitted by the assessee for assessment year 2008-09, to work out the ratio on total turnover, with reference to turnover belonging to power Tiller Division (deduction under section 80P Gandevi Taluka Khedut Sahakari Sangh Ltd. to be claimed) and turnover for other activities (where deduction u/s 80P should not be claimed by assessee

GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 137/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 251(1)(a)Section 80P(2)(A)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

iv). 21. The following chart is submitted by the assessee for assessment year 2008-09, to work out the ratio on total turnover, with reference to turnover belonging to power Tiller Division (deduction under section 80P Gandevi Taluka Khedut Sahakari Sangh Ltd. to be claimed) and turnover for other activities (where deduction u/s 80P should not be claimed by assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NA vs. ARIVS.GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 130/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 251(1)(a)Section 80P(2)(A)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

iv). 21. The following chart is submitted by the assessee for assessment year 2008-09, to work out the ratio on total turnover, with reference to turnover belonging to power Tiller Division (deduction under section 80P Gandevi Taluka Khedut Sahakari Sangh Ltd. to be claimed) and turnover for other activities (where deduction u/s 80P should not be claimed by assessee

GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 138/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 251(1)(a)Section 80P(2)(A)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

iv). 21. The following chart is submitted by the assessee for assessment year 2008-09, to work out the ratio on total turnover, with reference to turnover belonging to power Tiller Division (deduction under section 80P Gandevi Taluka Khedut Sahakari Sangh Ltd. to be claimed) and turnover for other activities (where deduction u/s 80P should not be claimed by assessee

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

LATE MAHESH RAMANLAL MODI L/H MANISH MAHESH MODI,BHARUCH vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

In the result, ground No. VII of appeal raised by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 999/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi, A.C.I.T., Through L-H Manish Mahesh Modi, Circle-1, Vs. Near Shakuntal Apartment, Dahej Bharuch. Bypass Road At Nandelav, Bharuch-392001 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adfpm 4030 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 23(5)Section 24Section 254(1)Section 40Section 69A

IV) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in not entertaining additional evidence under Rule 46A, particularly when the appellant demonstrated that he was deprived of the reasonable opportunity during the assessment. (1) Despite the fact that property was pending approval from the necessary authorities for completion, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming estimated income