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.

2,164 results for “TDS”+ Section 132clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi498Mumbai441Hyderabad222Bangalore123Chandigarh109Raipur94Jaipur92Chennai89Cochin85Ahmedabad69Kolkata49Indore34Visakhapatnam29Pune29Nagpur26Lucknow25Surat24Agra22Rajkot21Guwahati18Patna17Jodhpur11Amritsar9Cuttack7Dehradun6Allahabad6Panaji5Ranchi3Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 153A66Section 143(3)62Section 14758Addition to Income58Section 13241Disallowance38Section 25033Section 153C28Section 26327Section 6823

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

ITA 939/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: \nShri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

Showing 1–20 of 2,164 · Page 1 of 109

...
TDS21
Search & Seizure20

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

ITA 940/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

Section\n153D. It is not an exercise dealing with a immaterial matter which\ncould be corrected by taking recourse to Section 292B of the Act.\n16. We are not inclined to interdict the order of the Tribunal.\n17. Accordingly, the appeal is closed.\n6.5 The above view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value; 6 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others  However, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;  The Assessing Officer must examine the explanation with reference to books of account;  Addition based solely on a retracted statement without corroboration is not tenable. The Court specifically observed that even where retraction is delayed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value; 6 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others  However, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;  The Assessing Officer must examine the explanation with reference to books of account;  Addition based solely on a retracted statement without corroboration is not tenable. The Court specifically observed that even where retraction is delayed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

Section 132(4) may have evidentiary value; 6 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others  However, once retracted, it cannot be relied upon in isolation;  The Assessing Officer must examine the explanation with reference to books of account;  Addition based solely on a retracted statement without corroboration is not tenable. The Court specifically observed that even where retraction is delayed

MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 224/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Roy, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 253(5)

132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

TDS certificates / 15G forms for verification. The assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The invocation of 6 CO No.43/PUN/2025 provisions of section 115BBE of the Act was also challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 8. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 270/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

132(4) at the residential premises, had stated that the handwriting in the `ITA Nos.268 to 271/Bang/2024 M/s. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore Page 5 of 27 seized materials of Mr. Abdul Nasir, the Manager of the assessee firm, who was the brother-in law of Mr. Kodi Abdul Khader. Mr. Abdul Nasar, in the sworn statement recorded

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 268/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

132(4) at the residential premises, had stated that the handwriting in the `ITA Nos.268 to 271/Bang/2024 M/s. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore Page 5 of 27 seized materials of Mr. Abdul Nasir, the Manager of the assessee firm, who was the brother-in law of Mr. Kodi Abdul Khader. Mr. Abdul Nasar, in the sworn statement recorded

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 271/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

132(4) at the residential premises, had stated that the handwriting in the `ITA Nos.268 to 271/Bang/2024 M/s. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore Page 5 of 27 seized materials of Mr. Abdul Nasir, the Manager of the assessee firm, who was the brother-in law of Mr. Kodi Abdul Khader. Mr. Abdul Nasar, in the sworn statement recorded

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 269/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

132(4) at the residential premises, had stated that the handwriting in the `ITA Nos.268 to 271/Bang/2024 M/s. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore Page 5 of 27 seized materials of Mr. Abdul Nasir, the Manager of the assessee firm, who was the brother-in law of Mr. Kodi Abdul Khader. Mr. Abdul Nasar, in the sworn statement recorded

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

132(4) and/or under Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit filed on 20.05.2013. The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36 hours indicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the authorities of the appellantdepartment for making surrender. The affidavit filed by the assessee on 20.05.2013 explained in minute details

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

ITA 1721/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

132 of the Act. To this extent we reverse the findings\nof the learned CIT(A) for these A.Ys.2014-2015, 2015-2016\nand 2016-2017.\n8.3.\nHaving said so, let us come to the issue on hand.\nThe assessee has claimed deduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act\nin respect of profit derived from development of\ninfrastructure projects. There

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

ITA 1119/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)(a)Section 68Section 69B

section 115BBE of Income tax Act. He submitted that there is no case for addition of the said amount u/s 68 of the Act and he prayed that the same may be deleted. 13.3. The ld. D.R. submitted that no explanation whatsoever was given other than filing the list of cheques credited to his various bank accounts. The assessee

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

ITA 1117/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)(a)Section 68Section 69B

section 115BBE of Income tax Act. He submitted that there is no case for addition of the said amount u/s 68 of the Act and he prayed that the same may be deleted. 13.3. The ld. D.R. submitted that no explanation whatsoever was given other than filing the list of cheques credited to his various bank accounts. The assessee

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1722/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 80I

132 of the Act. To this extent we reverse the findings\nof the learned CIT(A) for these A.Ys.2014-2015, 2015-2016\nand 2016-2017.\n8.3.\nHaving said so, let us come to the issue on hand.\nThe assessee has claimed deduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act\nin respect of profit derived from development of\ninfrastructure projects. There

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result appeals filed by the Revenue\nITA

ITA 1416/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 80I

132 of the Act. To this extent we reverse the findings\nof the learned CIT(A) for these A.Ys.2014-2015, 2015-2016\nand 2016-2017.\n8.3.\nHaving said so, let us come to the issue on hand.\nThe assessee has claimed deduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act\nin respect of profit derived from development of\ninfrastructure projects. There

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERBAD vs. SEW INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1723/HYD/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

132 of the Act. To this extent we reverse the findings\nof the learned CIT(A) for these A.Ys.2014-2015, 2015-2016\nand 2016-2017.\n\n8.3.\nHaving said so, let us come to the issue on hand.\nThe assessee has claimed deduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act\nin respect of profit derived from development of\ninfrastructure projects. There

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

132(4)/131 of the Act is self-speaking document and it cannot be overruled. In our opinion, reliability of these statements depends upon the facts of each case and particularly surrounding circumstances and in this case, the lower authorities ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 49 of 62 reached to the conclusion

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

132(4)/131 of the Act is self-speaking document and it cannot be overruled. In our opinion, reliability of these statements depends upon the facts of each case and particularly surrounding circumstances and in this case, the lower authorities ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 49 of 62 reached to the conclusion