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.

74 results for “TDS”+ Section 90(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,605Delhi1,526Bangalore664Chennai505Kolkata400Ahmedabad312Cochin309Hyderabad295Indore187Jaipur178Raipur160Chandigarh145Pune125Karnataka123Surat74Cuttack71Visakhapatnam62Nagpur56Lucknow45Rajkot39Guwahati32Ranchi19Amritsar18Dehradun18Allahabad18Agra15Telangana13Jodhpur12SC11Varanasi10Patna9Panaji5Calcutta2Jabalpur2Punjab & Haryana2

Key Topics

Addition to Income48Section 143(3)46Disallowance32TDS24Section 254(1)22Deduction17Bogus Purchases16Section 26315Section 271(1)(c)15Section 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

SHRI MAHENDRA S. GAJJAR,NARMADA vs. DCIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4

12
Section 25012
Section 200A12

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1714/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 133Section 143Section 194CSection 200Section 40

1, 89, 38, 84 (Rs. 2, 49, 16, 46-Rs. 59, 77, 552), the appellant has not been able to establish that the provision of section 1904C and 194I etc. are not attracted of such expenses. The appellant has not furnished any evidences in this regard. As stated in earlier paragraph of this appeal order that the appellant

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

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

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. The mater came into my notice after one month of taking the charge by me. That I hereby

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHRI AYUSH MURALILAL AGARWAL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2622/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2622/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Ayush Murarilal Agarwal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Brijvilla Bunglow, Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(3)(1) Surat B/H Gokul Row House, Parley Point Surat 395 007 [Pan: Acypa 9649 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala - Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri B. P. K. Panda, Sr. D.R.

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 194CSection 40Section 44A

TDS under section 194C on labour expenses of Rs.4,90,232 on which the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source @1

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

90,210 14 Date of Order 27/10/2021 4 ITA No.348/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 Harmony Yarns Pvt. Ltd. 15 DIN ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2020-21/1030101465(1) ASSESSMENT ORDER 1. The case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: S No. issues 1. Transactions with Company whose Registration has been Cancelled by MCA. From the above extract

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

1,75,20,834 33. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order allowed deduction under section 80IA in respect of Land Fill I, Land Fill II and Incinerator project by treating the said undertakings as a composite undertaking. The ld CIT(A), held that the Incinerator is a new infrastructure facility and hence eligible for deduction under section

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

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

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

1,75,20,834 33. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order allowed deduction under section 80IA in respect of Land Fill I, Land Fill II and Incinerator project by treating the said undertakings as a composite undertaking. The ld CIT(A), held that the Incinerator is a new infrastructure facility and hence eligible for deduction under section

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

90,965/-). 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and examining the material placed on record, granted partial relief. While the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 2,19,43,348/- made by the ITO Vs. Abhyuththan Gram

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

90,965/-). 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and examining the material placed on record, granted partial relief. While the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 2,19,43,348/- made by the ITO Vs. Abhyuththan Gram

RASIKLAL BAVCHANDBHAI AKBARI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(4), SURAT, SURAT

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

ITA 44/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Rasiklal Bavchandbhai Akbari, I.T.O., 307, Santkrupa Apartment, Ward-3(3)(4), Vs. Matru Shakti Road, Kapodara Surat. Char Rasta, Surat, Gujarat- 395006. Pan No. Agmpa 6060 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 12/07/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1