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.

70 results for “TDS”+ Section 90clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,706Delhi1,564Bangalore685Chennai523Kolkata406Cochin268Hyderabad259Ahmedabad214Indore166Jaipur165Raipur154Karnataka123Chandigarh114Pune92Surat70Nagpur53Lucknow48Cuttack37Visakhapatnam36Rajkot33Guwahati24Ranchi20Kerala17Jodhpur17Telangana13Dehradun11Amritsar11SC11Agra10Varanasi10Patna9Allahabad5Panaji5Calcutta2Jabalpur2Punjab & Haryana2

Key Topics

Addition to Income46Section 143(3)45Disallowance30Section 254(1)22TDS20Bogus Purchases16Section 26315Section 271(1)(c)15Deduction15Section 68

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) and also liable to pay interest @ 1% for every month or part of month on the amount of such tax from the date the TDS was to be made. The contention of assessee that they are liable for interest liability only for 14 months commencing from May 2015 till end of September 2016, was also rejected

STATE BANK OF INDIA,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-3, NAVSARI

Showing 1–20 of 70 · Page 1 of 4

12
Section 200A12
Section 80P(2)12

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 38/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.37 & 38/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtualcourt Hearing) State Bank Of India Income Tax Officer (Tds-3) Room No.607, Aaykar Regional Business Office-V, Navsari- Vs. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Tapi, 1St Floor, Shourya Apartment, 395001 Opp. Lunsikul Ground, Navsari- 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacs 8577 K (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Divyang J. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sita Ram Meena,– Sr-DR
Section 201Section 5

section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. That in this way there is a delay of more than 90 days in filing an appeal before this Hon'ble ITAT. That the reason for delay in filing the appeal is that the then Chief Manager (Adm) had been taken VRS and the said post remained vacant for more than 3 months

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

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

section 36(1)(va) of Rs. 3,11,536/-, disallowed Rs. 90,637/- being the payment of interest to the Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., disallowed Rs.1,27,628/- the interest paid on late payment of TDS

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

SHRI ANIL OMPRAKASH MISHRA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 314/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Anil Om Prakash Mishra, I.T.O., A-281, Shubham Bunglows, Sachin, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Surat-394230. Surat. Pan No. Ajnpm 7661 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

90,350/- as reflected in Form AS-26, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. Sh. Anil Omprakash Mishra Vs ITO 147 of the Act on 10/12/2018. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made ad hoc addition at the rate of 20% disallowance

THE ITO, WARD-1,, NA vs. ARIVS.SHRI ANILKUMAR AMRUTLAL CHAHWALA, NAVSARI

In the result, this ground of appeal is rejected

ITA 1003/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2078/Ahd/2010 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1003/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Amrutlal Chahwala, Ward-(1), Navsari. 102, Trimurti Complex, Vijalpore, Navsari. [Pan: Abnpc 6308 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

section 143(3) on 31.12.2008 assessing total income of Rs. 18,25,11,340/-. The assessing officer during the assessment from the trading account of Padmavati Gems noted that the assessee has shown receipt of Rs. 1,78,47,208/- on account of labour job work. The assessee has shown payment of Rs. 1,76,51,180/- as labour charges

SYAMA DYNAMIC ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 13/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.12 & 13/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: (2017-18 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Syama Dynamics Engineering P. Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Cpc, 405-408, Shivalik Western, Dr. Vikram Bengaluru. Sarabhai Marg, Adajan, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatcs2932H Assessee By Shri Ashwin Shah, Ca With Shri Bhadreshbhai Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

90,40,117 Out of the above, the learned ACIT CPC has made the addition on account of delay in making the payment of PF & ESI of Rs.1,73,96,729 under Section 36(1)(va) stated on the basis of Clause No.20(b) of Form No.3CD. In fact, out of Rs.1,73,96,729 the assessee employees contribution

SYAMA DYNAMIC ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 12/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.12 & 13/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: (2017-18 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Syama Dynamics Engineering P. Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Cpc, 405-408, Shivalik Western, Dr. Vikram Bengaluru. Sarabhai Marg, Adajan, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatcs2932H Assessee By Shri Ashwin Shah, Ca With Shri Bhadreshbhai Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

90,40,117 Out of the above, the learned ACIT CPC has made the addition on account of delay in making the payment of PF & ESI of Rs.1,73,96,729 under Section 36(1)(va) stated on the basis of Clause No.20(b) of Form No.3CD. In fact, out of Rs.1,73,96,729 the assessee employees contribution

ACIT, CC-3, SURAT vs. SHRI NARESH NEMCHAND SHAH, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 197/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.197/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Acit, Central Cir.-3, Vs. Naresh Nemchand Shah, Surat. Abhishek House, Bh. Jeevan Bharti School, Kadampali Society, Nanpura, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrps 0182 J (Assessee)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

90 appeals were allowed by the Tribunal in a single order and the facts of the 89 assessees were not noted by the Tribunal. In any event, the assessee, Mr.Gupta was quite happy with the result and he made no attempt to request the Tribunal to note his facts which according to him may have been unique as was submitted

M/S. JAY KHODIYAR ENGINEERING,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9,, SURAT

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

ITA 1487/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1487/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Jay Khodiyar Engineering, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 52, New Shakti Vijay Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat Varachha Road, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3305P (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth - CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singla – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

90,75,500/-. The assessing officer was of the view that no labourer would. await payment of his wages for three to four months as he simply cannot afford to do so. 5. Therefore, the assessing officer issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain the same. The Assessee explained that the basic reason for increase in labour

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

90,672/- being advance from customers considered by the AO as unexplained Credit under Section 68 of the Act. The advance received from customers are duly accounted for in the books of accounts and shown as payable under the head of current liability. Your appellant contends that the said amount has already included in Sales Turnover in subsequent years whenever

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

90,672/- being advance from customers considered by the AO as unexplained Credit under Section 68 of the Act. The advance received from customers are duly accounted for in the books of accounts and shown as payable under the head of current liability. Your appellant contends that the said amount has already included in Sales Turnover in subsequent years whenever

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

90,42,462 22,71,231 1,19,87,117 The assessee claimed and allowed TDS credit of Rs.1,19,87,117/-, however the corresponding income was not taken into account. Thus, the contract income and interest income amounting to Rs.22,71,231/- was short accounted in profit and loss account. 4. Therefore, on the basis of above information available

VITRAG PRINTS,SURAT vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 338/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

90,330/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee`s case has been selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS due to Mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR and Large other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss account. Thereafter notice

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

ITA 550/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P(2)

90,550/- is concerned, we find that Saurashtra Nagrik Dhiran Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs DCIT such interest income was not offered by the assessee while filing return of income, and on similar addition, we have upheld the penalty for A.Y. 2008- 09, therefore, the penalty on such addition is upheld. 10. In the result, this appeal of assessee is also

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

ITA 551/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P(2)

90,550/- is concerned, we find that Saurashtra Nagrik Dhiran Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs DCIT such interest income was not offered by the assessee while filing return of income, and on similar addition, we have upheld the penalty for A.Y. 2008- 09, therefore, the penalty on such addition is upheld. 10. In the result, this appeal of assessee is also

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

ITA 552/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P(2)

90,550/- is concerned, we find that Saurashtra Nagrik Dhiran Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs DCIT such interest income was not offered by the assessee while filing return of income, and on similar addition, we have upheld the penalty for A.Y. 2008- 09, therefore, the penalty on such addition is upheld. 10. In the result, this appeal of assessee is also

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 21/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PAMECHA, AJMER

In the result the ground No

ITA 87/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 16/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed