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.

103 results for “TDS”+ Set Off of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,314Delhi1,831Bangalore914Chennai867Kolkata639Ahmedabad439Hyderabad303Jaipur271Pune247Chandigarh240Raipur186Cochin164Visakhapatnam138Cuttack137Indore123Surat103Rajkot93Karnataka68Lucknow63Nagpur62Ranchi48Jabalpur40Amritsar36Patna34Jodhpur28Guwahati28Agra21Allahabad19Telangana19Panaji18Varanasi14Dehradun13SC10Calcutta2Kerala2Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income83Section 143(3)81Section 26371Disallowance48TDS43Deduction39Section 6838Section 254(1)31Section 4025Section 148

MADHVI AJITKUMAR RANKA ,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 124/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka, Vs. Acit, 88, Sunder Nagar, Jamalpore, Navsari Circle, Navsari – 396445 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahfpr5791K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Darshit J. Naik, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

loss of Rs.95,52,264/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s.143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued, requesting the assessee to furnish various details. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) observed that assessee has shown gift income of Rs.44,61,237/- and credited the same in her capital account. Therefore, to verify

Showing 1–20 of 103 · Page 1 of 6

19
Bogus Purchases19
Section 14416

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

loss account, on which TDS was required to be made. However, as per the details in Form 3CD, no TDS deduction has been made on total expenses of Rs.31,11,76,823/-. It includes expenses of Rs.30,07,55,423/-, Rs.89,63,400/- and Rs.14,58,000/- covered u/s 194C, 194J and 192 of the Act respectively. Non-deduction

SHRI ANIL G. KUMAWAT,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1384/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

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

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL GHANSHYAMBHAI KUMAWAT,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1520/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

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

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

SHRI NARESH R. PAREEK,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1392/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

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

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT vs. SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR LODHA,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1498/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

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

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR LODHA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1380/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

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

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

SHRI ANIL G. KUMAWAT,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1383/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

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

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

SHRI SHARAD Y. JAIN,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1390/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

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

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT vs. SHRI GYANCHAND SUGAMCHAND JAIN,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1521/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

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

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL GHANSHYAMBHAI KUMAWAT,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1519/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

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

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

SHRI GYANCHAND & JAIN,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1387/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

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

Section 254(1)

TDS was deducted on the commission by principal. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has taken accommodation entry from such concerns. The assessee also filed copy of audited accounts, profits and loss account, balance sheet, copy of contract note of purchase/ sales of goods, debit and credit note of alleged commission and the statement of commission

SWASTIK CORPORATION,VAPI vs. PR. CIT 3, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.21/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Swastik Corporation The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Palak A-305, Surya Co-Operative Vs. Housing Society Ltd., Plot Arcade, Pali Hill Shanti Nagar, Tithal No.61, Vapi-396195 Road,Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abtfs 1028 G अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 184(5)Section 234A(1)Section 263Section 40

Loss Account for the year under consideration. Considering the facts of the case and the provision of section 184(5) of the I.T. Act, the interest and remuneration paid to the partners of Rs.11,05,769/- was not allowable to the assessee- firm as the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act. The AO had wrongly

CHIRAGBHAI S. GADHIYA,SURAT vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2)(6),, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 240/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya, I.T.O., 79, Mani Nagar Society, Nana Ward-3(2)(6), Vs. Varachha, Nr. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ajypg 7927 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

TDS form was furnished. On the basis of aforesaid submission, the assessee requested to delete the addition under Section 68 of the Act of Rs. 24,91,375/-. 4. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee held that the assessee claimed that he has received cash from various parties, however, no documentary evidence was furnished before

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR ROSHAN,,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, VAPI

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3153/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3153/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2007-08 Shri Vijay Kumar Roshan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4-First Floor, Shreeji Ward, Silvasa Apartment Kilavani, Naka Silvasa Pan: Aempr 1339 H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 194CSection 254Section 40

set-aside to the file of the AO. The learned counsel for the assessee further relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 333 (Bombay) submitted that the assessee was not deducting TDS for last so many years and the A.Y. 2007-08 is first year in which the AO applied section

RAHUL TEXTILE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., ,SURAT vs. ITO-TDS, WARD-2, SURAT

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

ITA 8/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rahul Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Tds, Ward-2, 4026-27, World Trade Centre, Surat. Udhna Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat – 395002. Pan : Aadcr5890F Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 2(22)(e)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)Section 3

set aside. (3) Without prejudice to the above, the penalty could not have been more than Rs.13.184 as against Rs.2,50,222 worked out by the 2 ITA. 8/SRT/2023/AY.2013-14 Rahul Textile Industries P. Ltd. TDS Officer. Correspondingly, interest u/s. 201(1A) would also go down. (4) Also, without prejudice to the above, admittedly, if section 2(22)(e) is anything

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)

set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored. ITA No.125/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Jashmin Kantilal Patel iv. The appellant craves to add, modify or alter any grounds during the cour4se of appeal proceedings.” 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual and filed his return of income on 28.09.2018, for assessment year

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

setting up health, education, home industries and other development works, keeping the overall development of women. Etc…. 10.1 The activities of the trust, as found from the record, were that it has received a contract from the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited for “supplying, installing & testing of underground Pipeline System of sub-minor for irrigation through kundies in chak area

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

setting up health, education, home industries and other development works, keeping the overall development of women. Etc…. 10.1 The activities of the trust, as found from the record, were that it has received a contract from the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited for “supplying, installing & testing of underground Pipeline System of sub-minor for irrigation through kundies in chak area

TRIVIDH CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 86/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.86/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Trividh Corporation, Vs. The Pcit, Surat. Tp No.25, Fp No.103, Aashtha Medicare & Residency, Abrama Road, Mota Varachha, Surat-395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahft0894N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. T. Bidari, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Pcit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Grievances Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Ld. Principal Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Invoke Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Act & Finally ‘Set-Aside’ Ao’S Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Also Direct The Ao To Frame The Assessment ‘Denovo’.” 2. The Relevant Material Facts, As Culled Out From The Material On Record, Are As Follows. The Assessee Before Us Is A Firm. It Has Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2015-16 On 13.10.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs. 4,42,80,220/-. The Assessee`S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Statutory Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Project Development Activities. The Id Assessing Assessment Years.2015-16 Trividh Corporation Officer (Herein After Referred To ‘Ao’) Finalized The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, On 11.12.2017, Accepting The Returned Income Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. T. Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Set-aside’ AO’s assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and also direct the AO to frame the assessment ‘Denovo’.” 2. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee before us is a firm. It has filed its return of income for assessment year 2015-16 on 13.10.2015 declaring