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.

3,739 results for “TDS”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai978Delhi754Bangalore336Kolkata283Chennai185Ahmedabad170Jaipur127Karnataka117Raipur107Pune97Indore86Chandigarh72Cochin64Surat61Hyderabad55Visakhapatnam44Lucknow34Rajkot22Agra20Nagpur20Cuttack18Amritsar17Patna14Guwahati14Dehradun9Varanasi7Ranchi6Panaji6Allahabad4Telangana3Jabalpur3Jodhpur2SC2Calcutta1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)72Addition to Income65Section 14745Section 153C38Section 14837Section 25035TDS33Section 6832Section 133(6)30Section 153A30Disallowance

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5970/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 127(1)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

section 133(6) and summon issued under section 131 cannot per se be a ground to make addition. The AO has stated that notice under section 133(6) and summon under section 131 was issued but in response no reply received and none attended till date. This means that notice and summon have been served. In these circumstances

Showing 1–20 of 3,739 · Page 1 of 187

...
30
Deduction17

PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6015/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 127(1)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

section 133(6) and summon issued under section 131 cannot per se be a ground to make addition. The AO has stated that notice under section 133(6) and summon under section 131 was issued but in response no reply received and none attended till date. This means that notice and summon have been served. In these circumstances

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 954/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 37(1)

section 133(6) of the Act but no response was received from said but no response was received from said party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective and guard regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 957/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 37(1)

section 133(6) of the Act but no response was received from said but no response was received from said party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective and guard regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 955/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 37(1)

section 133(6) of the Act but no response was received from said but no response was received from said party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective and guard regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 956/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 37(1)

section 133(6) of the Act but no response was received from said but no response was received from said party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that party. During assessment proceeding, the assessee contended that regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective and guard regarding services provided by M/s Pushpak detective

INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KIRITBHAI K. THUMMAR, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 697/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

TDS cannot be sole criteria for genuineness. The AO also held that the aforesaid 3 entities have not made any compliance to notice issued under section 133(6

M/S.KADUTHURUTHY REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE JT IT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 308/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathankaduthuruthy Regional Service Joint Commissioner Of Co-Op Bank Ltd. Income Tax (Tds) Vs. Kaduthuruthuy P.O. Trivandrum Kottayam Pan – Aaajk0315Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. J.M. Jamuna Devi
Section 133Section 133(6)Section 194A

TDS) is not an authority to invoke provision under the said section. C. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the information under Section 133(6

DEVIKA BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

TDS has been claimed, this objective stand fulfilled. Disallowance of expense solely on the ground of non-compliance of notice u/s 133(6) is not legally sustainable. 6. The contention of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO, on the ground that “notices under Section

DCIT 12(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BUSINESS MATCH SERVICES (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6330/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Lakshmi Vara Prasad Gude, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain, D.R
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36Section 68

section 133(6) of the Act to 19 parties calling upon the lenders to file various details such as copies of ITRs for three years, ledger accounts, bank statements, TDS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. RUDRA GLOBAL INFRA PRODUCTS LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 1163/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

section 133(6) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A), after an elaborate examination of facts and documentary evidence, deleted the addition by recording detailed factual findings as under:- “6.1 The only substantial ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. JAIPUR GOLDEN TRANSPORT CO PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4990/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2012-13] Assistant Commissioner, Of Jaipur Golden Transport Co. Income Tax, Private Limited, Room No.316A, C.R. Vs 4741, Roshananra Road, Building, I.P Estate, Malkaganj, North Delhi, New New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110007 Pan Aaacj4124B Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Y.K. Mehan, Ca, Shri Dheeraj Kumar, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025

Section 143(3)

TDS which the appellant company has been regularly deducting on those payments. For reasons already given while disposing off Ground of Appeal No. 2, ad hoc additions cannot be upheld in law and neither can those additions be sustained which have been made merely because notices under section 133(6

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1503/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mrs. Rituja Pawar Deswal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

133(6) of the Act which was not disputed by the Revenue. Accordingly, we find no merits in placing reliance on the bank statement of the assessee’s mother particularly when aforesaid evidence is not doubted by the Revenue. Further, the Revenue has also not doubted the genuineness of the 7/12 extract furnished by assessee’s mother in respect

SANJIB SUDHIR PRADHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 932/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mrs. Rituja Pawar Deswal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

133(6) of the Act which was not disputed by the Revenue. Accordingly, we find no merits in placing reliance on the bank statement of the assessee’s mother particularly when aforesaid evidence is not doubted by the Revenue. Further, the Revenue has also not doubted the genuineness of the 7/12 extract furnished by assessee’s mother in respect

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. PIONEER FABRICATORS PVT. LTD., MEERUT

In the result ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2861/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Circle-2, Meerut B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Partapur, Meerut Pan:Aabcp3296R (Appellant) (Respondent) Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Acit, Vs. B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Circle-2, Meerut Pioneer Partapur, Meerut Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Pan:Aabcp3296R B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Partapur, Meerut Pan:Aabcp3296R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri HC Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 133Section 143Section 271Section 68

section 133 (6) of the income tax act. Many of such letters could not be served but no fault can be found of assessee in that when the address appearing in the bills are provided by the assessee. Furthermore, M/s Shiv Das and sons private limited as well as the Bengal rebates and bolts assessee has shown proper reconciliation, which

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1557/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

6 ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on legality

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1054/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

6 ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on legality

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1053/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

6 ITA Nos. No. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. 1053 to 1055/M/2018 and ors. impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition as well as on legality

DCIT-CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRIDENT MARBLES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the R the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment evenue for assessment year

ITA 994/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 994 & 995/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Dcit Central Circle-2(3), M/S Trident Marbles Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Near Laxmi Narayan Temple, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan (Annexe), Airport Side Service Road, Vile M.K. Road, Churchgate, Parle (E), Mumbai-400099. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4634 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vimal Punmiya a/w Shri PrakashFor Respondent: Mr. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 68

TDS on the interest paid. 5.2.3 During the course of assessment proceeding, the the course of assessment proceeding, the the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer issued noti Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6

DCIT-CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRIDENT MARBLES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the R the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment evenue for assessment year

ITA 995/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 994 & 995/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Dcit Central Circle-2(3), M/S Trident Marbles Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Near Laxmi Narayan Temple, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan (Annexe), Airport Side Service Road, Vile M.K. Road, Churchgate, Parle (E), Mumbai-400099. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4634 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vimal Punmiya a/w Shri PrakashFor Respondent: Mr. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 68

TDS on the interest paid. 5.2.3 During the course of assessment proceeding, the the course of assessment proceeding, the the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer issued noti Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6