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.

342 results for “TDS”+ Section 4clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,983Delhi5,958Bangalore2,778Chennai2,462Kolkata1,764Pune1,560Ahmedabad1,248Hyderabad1,055Cochin814Indore759Jaipur721Karnataka565Patna559Chandigarh558Raipur495Nagpur416Visakhapatnam381Cuttack345Surat342Rajkot269Lucknow214Amritsar182Jabalpur150Jodhpur130Dehradun125Ranchi125Agra92Guwahati81Panaji81Telangana77Allahabad67Varanasi29SC26Calcutta24Kerala18Rajasthan10Himachal Pradesh8Punjab & Haryana7J&K5Orissa4Uttarakhand3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)75Addition to Income75TDS59Section 26352Section 254(1)32Disallowance31Section 14826Section 6825Section 4024Section 144

THE ACIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1867/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 80I

Section 80IA deduction. 4. The CIT(A) reverses Assessing Officer's findings as under: "4.3 I have considered the submission of the Id. AR and facts of the case. On perusal of various appellate orders passed .by my predecessors, it is seen that the appellant has been allowed deduction u/s.80IA of the Act since A.Y.2002-03 in respect of its Land

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE DY.CIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Showing 1–20 of 342 · Page 1 of 18

...
24
Deduction22
Section 15420
ITA 1849/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 80I

Section 80IA deduction. 4. The CIT(A) reverses Assessing Officer's findings as under: "4.3 I have considered the submission of the Id. AR and facts of the case. On perusal of various appellate orders passed .by my predecessors, it is seen that the appellant has been allowed deduction u/s.80IA of the Act since A.Y.2002-03 in respect of its Land

SHREE VEGAM URBAN CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Shaunak K. Zaveri, CAFor Respondent: Ms Namita Patel, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 250Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment. [Para 29] Moreover, as reliance placed on the aforesaid decision for applicability of section 80P(4

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL CO. PVT LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 541/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

section 194C of the Act, if a single payment does not exceed Rs.30,000/- or the total sum paid during the financial year does not exceed Rs.1 lakh, deduction of TDS u/s 190C is not required. However, it is not clear from the submission of the appellant that the daily wages and labour charges of Rs.8

DESAI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, VALSAD

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

ITA 506/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri S.B.G. Mahapatra, Sr.D.R
Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

section 234E. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source (TDS) on making certain payments as per Chapter XVII of Income Tax Act. The assessee deducted such tax at source and filed statement of TDS. However, there was certain delay in furnishing / filing the statement of TDS of various quarters

DESAI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, VALSAD

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

ITA 505/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri S.B.G. Mahapatra, Sr.D.R
Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

section 234E. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source (TDS) on making certain payments as per Chapter XVII of Income Tax Act. The assessee deducted such tax at source and filed statement of TDS. However, there was certain delay in furnishing / filing the statement of TDS of various quarters

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

4 of 15 which is eligible for exemption under section 10(37) of the Act. The AO also observed that land was acquired by SMC at Dindoli for sewage treatment plant and was not under compulsory acquisition of land. The AO further noted that land was acquired u/s. 77 of BPMC Act, 1949 hence; the said land was acquired

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 39/SRT/2020[QUARTER-III 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani (supra) while passing the decision has missed the important aspect whether the enforcement of provisions of Section 234E from 01.07.2012 is retrospective

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 40/SRT/2020[QUARTER-IV 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani (supra) while passing the decision has missed the important aspect whether the enforcement of provisions of Section 234E from 01.07.2012 is retrospective

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 38/SRT/2020[QUARTER-II 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani (supra) while passing the decision has missed the important aspect whether the enforcement of provisions of Section 234E from 01.07.2012 is retrospective

KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 65/SRT/2020[2014-15 QUARTER 1]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani (supra) while passing the decision has missed the important aspect whether the enforcement of provisions of Section 234E from 01.07.2012 is retrospective

KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 66/SRT/2020[2014-15 QUARTER 2]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani (supra) while passing the decision has missed the important aspect whether the enforcement of provisions of Section 234E from 01.07.2012 is retrospective

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 61/SRT/2020[2015-16 QUARTER 1]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani (supra) while passing the decision has missed the important aspect whether the enforcement of provisions of Section 234E from 01.07.2012 is retrospective

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 63/SRT/2020[215-16 QUARTER 3]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani (supra) while passing the decision has missed the important aspect whether the enforcement of provisions of Section 234E from 01.07.2012 is retrospective

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 64/SRT/2020[2015-16 QUARTER 4]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani (supra) while passing the decision has missed the important aspect whether the enforcement of provisions of Section 234E from 01.07.2012 is retrospective

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 62/SRT/2020[2015-16 QUARTER 2]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

TDS deducted prior to 01.06.2015, hence the demand of fee under section 234E is without authority of law. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani (supra) while passing the decision has missed the important aspect whether the enforcement of provisions of Section 234E from 01.07.2012 is retrospective

SHRI BIPINCHANDRA HIRALAL THAKKAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6),, SURAT

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

ITA 2126/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2126/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Ay.: (2013-14) Shri Bipinchandra Hiralal Thakkar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.60/61, Hari Ichha Society, Ward-1(2)6, Surat. Udhna Bhestan Road, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpt1432D (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah- CAFor Respondent: Miss Anupama Singla – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40Section 44A

section 194A and 194C of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, assessing officer issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain the reasons for non-deduction of TDS. 4

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)

4. Brief facts are that the assessee along with other co-owners has sold immovable property on 29.09.2008 for Rs.3,80,40,000 in which assessee`s share was 1/3rd which worked out to Rs. 1,26,80,000.. Therefore, the AO has considered the long-term capital gain accrued in A.Y. 2009-10. The filed original return

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)

4. Brief facts are that the assessee along with other co-owners has sold immovable property on 29.09.2008 for Rs.3,80,40,000 in which assessee`s share was 1/3rd which worked out to Rs. 1,26,80,000.. Therefore, the AO has considered the long-term capital gain accrued in A.Y. 2009-10. The filed original return

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)

4. Brief facts are that the assessee along with other co-owners has sold immovable property on 29.09.2008 for Rs.3,80,40,000 in which assessee`s share was 1/3rd which worked out to Rs. 1,26,80,000.. Therefore, the AO has considered the long-term capital gain accrued in A.Y. 2009-10. The filed original return